Now comes the United States
House of Representatives, by and through its duly authorized Managers,
and respectfully submits to the United States Senate its Brief in
connection with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States.

SUMMARY

The President is charged in two
Articles with: 1) Perjury and false and misleading testimony and
statements under oath before a federal grand jury (Article I), and 2)
engaging in a course of conduct or scheme to delay and obstruct justice
(Article II).

The evidence contained in the
record, when viewed as a unified whole, overwhelmingly supports both
charges.

Perjury and False Statements
Under Oath

President Clinton deliberately
and willfully testified falsely under oath when he appeared before a
federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. Although what follows is not
exhaustive, some of the more overt examples will serve to illustrate.

At the very outset, the
President read a prepared statement, which itself contained totally
false assertions and other clearly misleading information.

The President relied on his
statement nineteen times in his testimony when questioned about his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

President Clinton falsely
testified that he was not paying attention when his lawyer employed Ms.
Lewinsky's false affidavit at the Jones deposition.

He falsely claimed that his
actions with Ms. Lewinsky did not fall within the definition of "sexual
relations" that was given at his deposition.

He falsely testified that he
answered questions truthfully at his deposition concerning, among other
subjects, whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky.

He falsely testified that he
instructed Ms. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed.

He falsely denied trying to
influence Ms. Currie after his deposition.

He falsely testified that he
was truthful to his aides when he gave accounts of his relationship,
which accounts were subsequently disseminated to the media and the
grand jury.

Obstruction of Justice

The President engaged in an
ongoing scheme to obstruct both the Jones civil case and the grand
jury. Further, he undertook a continuing and concerted plan to tamper
with witnesses and prospective witnesses for the purpose of causing
those witnesses to provide false and misleading testimony. Examples
abound:

The President and Ms.
Lewinsky concocted a cover story to conceal their relationship, and the
President suggested that she employ that story if subpoenaed in the
Jones case.

The President suggested that
Ms. Lewinsky provide an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones
case, when he knew that the affidavit would need to be false to
accomplish its purpose.

The President knowingly and
willfully allowed his attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit
and to use it for the purpose of obstructing justice in the Jones case.

The President suggested to
Ms. Lewinsky that she provide a false account of how she received her
job at the Pentagon.

The President attempted to
influence the expected testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie, by
providing her with a false account of his meetings with Ms. Lewinsky.

The President provided
several of his top aides with elaborate lies about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky, so that those aides would convey the false
information to the public and to the grand jury. When he did this, he
knew that those aides would likely be called to testify, while he was
declining several invitations to testify. By this action, he obstructed
and delayed the operation of the grand jury.

The President conspired with
Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie to conceal evidence that he had been
subpoenaed in the Jones case, and thereby delayed and obstructed
justice.

The President and his
representatives orchestrated a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky in
order to affect adversely her credibility as a witness, and thereby
attempted to obstruct justice both in the Jones case and the grand jury.

The President lied
repeatedly under oath in his deposition in the Jones case, and thereby
obstructed justice in that case.

The President's lies and
misleading statements under oath at the grand jury were calculated to,
and did obstruct, delay and prevent the due administration of justice
by that body.

The President employed the
power of his office to procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after she signed
the false affidavit by causing his friend to exert extraordinary
efforts for that purpose.

The foregoing are merely
accusations of an ongoing pattern of obstruction of justice, and
witness tampering extending over a period of several months, and having
the effect of seriously compromising the integrity of the entire
judicial system.

The effect of the President's
misconduct has been devastating in several respects.

1) He violated repeatedly his
oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

2) He ignored his
constitutional duty as chief law enforcement officer to "take care that
the laws be faithfully executed."

3) He deliberately and
unlawfully obstructed Paula Jones's rights as a citizen to due process
and the equal protection of the laws, though he had sworn to protect
those rights.

4) By his pattern of lies under
oath, misleading statements and deceit, he has seriously undermined the
integrity and credibility of the Office of President and thereby the
honor and integrity of the United States.

5) His pattern of perjuries,
obstruction of justice, and witness tampering has affected the truth
seeking process which is the foundation of our legal system.

6) By mounting an assault in
the truth seeking process, he has attacked the entire Judicial Branch
of government.

The Articles of Impeachment
that the House has preferred state offenses that warrant, if proved,
the conviction and removal from office of President William Jefferson
Clinton. The Articles charge that the President has committed perjury
before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed justice in a federal
civil rights action. The Senate's own precedents establish beyond doubt
that perjury warrants conviction and removal. During the 1980s, the
Senate convicted and removed three federal judges for committing
perjury. Obstruction of justice undermines the judicial system in the
same fashion that perjury does, and it also warrants conviction and
removal.

Under our Constitution, judges
are impeached under the same standard as Presidents -- treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, these judicial
impeachments for perjury set the standard here. Finally, the Senate's
own precedents further establish that the President's crimes need not
arise directly out of his official duties. Two of the three judges
removed in the 1980s were removed for perjury that had nothing to do
with their official duties.

INTRODUCTION

This Brief is intended solely
to advise the Senate generally of the evidence that the Managers intend
to produce, if permitted, and of the applicable legal principles. It is
not intended to discuss exhaustively all of the evidence, nor does it
necessarily include each and every witness and document that the
Managers would produce in the course of the trial. This Brief, then, is
merely an outline for the use of the Senate in reviewing and assessing
the evidence as it is set forth at trial - it is not, and is not
intended to be a substitute for a trial at which all of the relevant
facts will be developed.

H.
RES. 611, 105th Cong. 2nd Sess. (1998).

The House Impeachment
Resolution charges the President with high crimes and misdemeanors in
two Articles. Article One alleges that President Clinton "willfully
corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for
his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice" in that he willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading
testimony to a federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. Article Two
asserts that the President "has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the
administration of justice and engaged in a course of conduct or scheme
designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of
evidence and testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought
against him." Both Articles are now before the Senate of the United
States for trial as provided by the Constitution of the United States.

The Office of
President represents to the American people and to the world, the
strength, the philosophy and most of all, the honor and integrity that
makes us a great nation and an example for the world. Because all eyes
are focused upon that high office, the character and credibility of any
temporary occupant of the Oval Office is vital to the domestic and
foreign welfare of the citizens. Consequently, serious breaches of
integrity and duty of necessity adversely influence the reputation of
the United States.

This case is not about sex or
private conduct. It is about multiple obstructions of justice, perjury,
false and misleading statements, and witness tampering - all committed
or orchestrated by the President of the United States.

Before addressing the
President's lies and obstruction, it is important to
place the events in the proper context. If this were only about private
sex we would not now be before the Senate. But the manner in which the
Lewinsky relationship arose and continued is important because it is
illustrative of the character of the President and the decisions he
made.BACKGROUND

Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old
intern, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 8; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 728) was working at the
White House during the government shutdown in 1995. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p.
10; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 730) Prior to their first intimate encounter,
she had never even spoken with the President. Sometime on November 15,
1995, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton flirted with each other. (Id.)
The President of the United States of America then invited this unknown
young intern into a private area off the Oval Office where he kissed
her. He then invited her back later and when she returned, the two
engaged in the first of many acts of inappropriate contact. (ML 8/6/98
GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 732)

Thereafter, the two concocted a
cover story. If Ms. Lewinsky were seen, she was bringing papers to the
President. That story was totally false. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 774; 8/26/98 Dep., p. 34; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1314) The only
papers she brought were personal messages having nothing to do with her
duties or those of the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 54-55; H.Doc.
105-311, pp 774-775) After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White House to
the Pentagon, her frequent visits to the President were disguised as
visits to Betty Currie. (Id.) Those cover stories are important,
because they play a vital role in the later perjuries and obstructions.

ENCOUNTERS

Over the term of their
relationship the following significant matters occurred:

1. Monica Lewinsky and the
President were alone on at least twenty-one occasions;

These are the essential facts
which form the backdrop for all of the events that followed.

The sexual details of the
President's encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, though relevant, need not be
detailed either in this document or through witness testimony. It is
necessary, though, briefly to outline that evidence, because it will
demonstrate that the President repeatedly lied about that sexual
relationship in his deposition, before the grand jury, and in his
responses to the Judiciary Committee's questions. He has consistently
maintained that Ms. Lewinsky merely performed acts on him, while he
never touched her in a sexual manner. This characterization not only
directly contradicts Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, but it also contradicts
the sworn grand jury testimony of three of her friends and the
statements by two professional counselors with whom she
contemporaneously shared the details of her relationship. (O.I.C.
Referral, H.Doc. 105-310, pgs. 138-140)

While his treatment of Ms.
Lewinsky was offensive, it is much more offensive for the President to
expect the Senate to believe that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, his intimate
contact with Ms. Lewinsky was so limited that it did not fall within
his narrow interpretation of a definition of "sexual relations". As
later demonstrated, he did not even conceive his interpretation until
1998, while preparing for his grand jury appearance.

HOW
TO VIEW THE EVIDENCE

We respectfully submit that the
evidence and testimony must be viewed as a whole; it cannot be
compartmentalized. It is essential to avoid considering each event in
isolation, and then treating it separately. Events and words that may
seem innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a
sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the context of
the whole plot. For example, everyone agrees that Monica Lewinsky
testified "No one ever told me to lie; nobody ever promised me a job."
(ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 105; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1161)

When considered alone this
would seem exculpatory. However, in the context of the other evidence,
another picture emerges. Of course no one said, "Now, Monica, you go in
there and lie." They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what was
expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job, but once
she signed the false affidavit, she got one.

THE
ISSUE

The ultimate issue is whether
the President's course of conduct is such as to affect adversely the
Office of the President and also upon the administration of justice,
and whether he has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and subversive to the Rule of Law and Constitutional government.

THE
BEGINNING

The events that form the basis
of these charges actually began in late 1995. They reached a critical
stage in the winter of 1997 and the first month of 1998. The event
culminated when the President of the United States appeared before a
federal grand jury, raised his right hand to God and swore to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

December 5-6, 1997

On Friday, December 5, 1997,
Monica Lewinsky asked Betty Currie if the President could see her the
next day, Saturday, but Ms. Currie said that the President was
scheduled to meet with his lawyers all day. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs.
107-108; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 827-828) Later that Friday, Ms. Lewinsky
spoke briefly to the President at a Christmas party. (ML 7/31/98 Int.,
p. 1; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1451; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 108; H.Doc. 105-311, p.
828)

THE
WITNESS LIST IS RECEIVED

That evening, Paula Jones's
attorneys faxed a list of potential witnesses to the President's
attorneys. (849-DC-00000128; 849-DC-00000121-37; Referral, H.Doc.
105-311, p. 88) The list included Monica Lewinsky. However, Ms.
Lewinsky did not find out that her name was on the list until the
President told her ten days later, on December 17. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs.
121-123; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 841-843) That delay is significant.

MS.
LEWINSKY'S FIRST VISIT

After her conversation with Ms.
Currie and seeing the President at the Christmas party, Ms. Lewinsky
drafted a letter to the President terminating their relationship.
(ML-55-DC-0177; ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 2; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1452) The
next morning, Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to the White
House to deliver the letter and some gifts for the President to Ms.
Currie. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 108-109; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 828-829) When
she arrived at the White House, Ms. Lewinsky spoke to several Secret
Service officers, and one of them told her that the President was not
with his lawyers, as she thought, but rather, he was meeting with
Eleanor Mondale. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 111; H.Doc 105-311, p. 831; Mondale
7/16/98 Int., p. 1; H.Doc 105-316, pgs. 2907-2908; H.Doc. 105-311, p.
2654) Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie from a pay phone, angrily
exchanged words with her, and went home. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 112-13;
H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 832-833; Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 37; H.Doc. 105-316,
p. 553) After that phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret Service watch
commander that the President was so upset about the disclosure of his
meeting with Ms. Mondale that he wanted somebody fired. (Purdie 7/23/98
GJ, pgs. 13, 18-19; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 3356-3357)

THE
TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

At 12:05 p.m., records
demonstrate that Ms. Currie paged Bruce Lindsey with the message: "Call
Betty ASAP." (964-DC-00000862; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 2722) Around that
same time, according to Ms. Lewinsky, while she was back at her
apartment, Ms. Lewinsky and the President spoke by phone. The President
was very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky that no one had ever treated him
as poorly as she had. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-14; H.Doc 105-311, pgs.
833-834) The President acknowledged to the grand jury that he was upset
about Ms. Lewinsky's behavior and considered it inappropriate. (WJC
8/17/98 GJ, p. 85; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 537) Nevertheless, in a sudden
change of mood, he invited her to visit him at the White House that
afternoon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 114; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 834)

MS. LEWINSKY'S
SECOND VISIT

Monica Lewinsky arrived at the
White House for the second time that day and was cleared to enter at
12:52 p.m. (WAVES: 827-DC-00000018) Although, in Ms. Lewinsky's words,
the President was "very angry" with her during their recent telephone
conversation, he was "sweet" and "very affectionate" during this visit.
(ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-15; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-835) He also told
her that he would talk to Vernon Jordan about her job situation. (ML
8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 115-16; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 835-836)

THE
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SECRET SERVICE

The
President also suddenly changed his attitude toward the Secret Service.
Ms. Currie informed some officers that if they kept quiet about the
Lewinsky incident, there would be no disciplinary action. (Williams
7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 25, 27-28; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 4539; Chinery 7/23/98
GJ, p. 22-23; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 456) According to the Secret Service
watch commander, Captain Jeffrey Purdie, the President personally told
him, "I hope you use your discretion" or "I hope I can count on your
discretion." (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, p. 32; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3360; Purdie
7/17/98 GJ, p. 3; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3353) Deputy Chief Charles
O'Malley, Captain Purdie's supervisor, testified that he knew of no
other time in his fourteen years of service at the White House where
the President raised a performance issue with a member of the Secret
Service uniformed division. (O'Malley 9/8/98 Dep., pgs. 40-41; H.Doc.
105-316, pgs. 3168-3171) After his conversation with the President,
Captain Purdie told a number of officers that they should not discuss
the Lewinsky incident. (Porter 8/13/98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-316, p.
3343; Niedzwiecki 7/30/98 GJ, pgs. 30-31; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3114)

When the President was before
the grand jury and questioned about his statements to the Secret
Service regarding this incident, the President testified, "I don't
remember what I said and I don't remember to whom I said it." (WJC
8/17/98 GJ, p. 86; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 534) When confronted with Captain
Purdie's testimony, the President testified, "I don't remember anything
I said to him in that regard. I have no recollection of that whatever."
(WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 91; H.Doc. 105-311 p. 543)

THE PRESIDENT'S
KNOWLEDGE OF THE WITNESS LIST

President Clinton testified
before the grand jury that he learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the
Jones witness list that evening, Saturday, December 6, during a meeting
with his lawyers.(WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 83-84; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 535-536)
He stood by this answer in response to Request Number 16 submitted by
the Judiciary Committee. (Exhibit 18) The meeting occurred around 5
p.m., after Ms. Lewinsky had left the White House.(WAVES:
1407-DC-00000005; Lindsey 3/12/98 GJ, pgs. 64-66; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs.
2418-19) According to Bruce Lindsey, at the meeting, Bob Bennett had a
copy of the Jones witness list faxed to Mr. Bennett the previous night.
(Lindsey 3/12/98 GJ, pgs. 65-67; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 2419)(Exhibit 15)

However, during his deposition,
the President testified that he had heard about the witness list before
he saw it. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 70) In other words, if the President
testified truthfully in his deposition, then he knew about the witness
list before the 5 p.m. meeting. It is valid to infer that hearing Ms.
Lewinsky's name on a witness list prompted the President's sudden and
otherwise unexplained change from "very angry" to "very affectionate"
that Saturday afternoon. It is also reasonable to infer that it
prompted him to give the unique instruction to a Secret Service watch
commander to use "discretion" regarding Ms. Lewinsky's visit to the
White House, which the watch commander interpreted as an instruction to
refrain from discussing the incident. (Purdie 7/17/98 GJ, pgs. 20-21;
H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 3351-3352; Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 32-33; H.Doc.
105-315, pgs. 3360-3361)

THE
JOB SEARCHFOR
MS. LEWINSKY

Monica Lewinsky had been
looking for a good paying and high profile job in New York since the
previous July. She was not having much success despite the President's
promise to help. In early November, Betty Currie arranged a meeting
with Vernon Jordan who was supposed to help. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 176;
H.Doc. 105-316, p. 592)

On November 5, Ms. Lewinsky met
for twenty minutes with Mr. Jordan. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 104; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 824) No action followed; no job interviews were arranged
and there were no further contacts with Mr. Jordan. It was obvious that
he made no effort to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, it was so
unimportant to him that he "had no recollection of an early November
meeting" (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 50; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1799) and that
finding a job for Ms. Lewinsky was not a priority (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 76;
H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1804)(Chart R) Nothing happened throughout the month
of November, because Mr. Jordan was either gone or would not return
Monica's calls. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 105-106; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 825-826)

During the December 6 meeting
with the President, she mentioned that she had not been able to get in
touch with Mr. Jordan and that it did not seem he had done anything to
help her. The President responded by stating, "Oh, I'll talk to him.
I'll get on it," or something to that effect. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs.
115-116; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 836) There was obviously still no urgency
to help Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan met the President the next day,
December 7, but the meeting was unrelated to Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 5/5/98
GJ, pgs. 83, 116; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1805, 1810)

THE
DECEMBER 11, 1997 ACTIVITY

The first activity calculated
to help Ms. Lewinsky actually procure employment took place on December
11. Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky and gave her a list of contact
names. The two also discussed the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 119,
120; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 839-840) That meeting Mr. Jordan remembered.
(VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1798) Vernon Jordan
immediately placed calls to two prospective employers. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ,
pgs. 54, 62-63; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1800-1802) Later in the afternoon,
he even called the President to give him a report on his job search
efforts. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 64-66; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1802) Clearly,
Mr. Jordan and the President were now very interested in
helping Monica find a good job in New York. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 95;
H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1807)

SIGNIFICANCE
OF DECEMBER 11, 1997

This sudden interest was
inspired by a court order entered on December 11, 1997. On that date,
Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered that Paula Jones was entitled to
information regarding any state or federal employee with whom the
President had sexual relations, proposed sexual relations, or sought to
have sexual relations.

The President knew that it
would be politically and legally expedient to maintain an amicable
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And the President knew that that
relationship would be fostered by finding Ms. Lewinsky a job. This was
accomplished through enlisting the help of Vernon Jordan.

December 17, 1997

MS.
LEWINSKY LEARNS OF WITNESS LIST

On December 17, 1997, between
2:00 and 2:30 in the morning, Monica Lewinsky's phone rang
unexpectedly. It was the President of the United States. The President
said that he wanted to tell Ms. Lewinsky two things: one was that Betty
Currie's brother had been killed in a car accident; secondly, the
President said that he "had some more bad news," that he had seen the
witness list for the Paula Jones case and her name was on it. (ML
8/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 843) The President told Ms.
Lewinsky that seeing her name on the list "broke his heart." He then
told her that "if [she] were to be subpoenaed, [she] should contact
Betty and let Betty know that [she] had received the subpoena." (Id.)
Ms. Lewinsky asked what she should do if subpoenaed. The President
responded: "Well, maybe you can sign an affidavit." (Id.) Both
parties knew that the Affidavit would need to be false and misleading
to accomplish the desired result.

THE
PRESIDENT'S "SUGGESTION"

Then, the President had a very
pointed suggestion for Monica Lewinsky, a suggestion that left little
room for compromise. He did not specifically tell her to lie. What he
did say is "you know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty
or that you were bringing me letters." (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 843)

In order to understand the
significance of this statement, it is necessary to recall the "cover
stories" that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had previously structured
in order to deceive those who protected and worked with the President.

Ms. Lewinsky said she would
carry papers when she visited the President. When she saw him, she
would say: "Oh, gee, 'here are your letters,' wink, wink, wink and he
would answer, 'Okay that's good.'" (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 774) After Ms. Lewinsky left White House employment, she
would return to the Oval Office under the guise of visiting Betty
Currie, not the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 55; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 775)

Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky promised
the President that she would always deny the sexual relationship and
always protect him. The President would respond "that's good" or
similar language of encouragement. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 22; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 1078)

So, when the President called
Ms. Lewinsky at 2:00 a.m. on December 17 to tell her she was on the
witness list, he made sure to remind her of those prior "cover
stories." Ms. Lewinsky testified that when the President brought up the
misleading stories, she understood that the two would continue their
pre-existing pattern of deception.

THE
PRESIDENT'S INTENTION

It became clear that the
President had no intention of making his sexual relationship with
Monica Lewinsky a public affair. And he would use lies, deceit, and
deception to ensure that the truth would not be known.

It is interesting to note that
when the grand jury asked the President whether he remembered calling
Monica Lewinsky at 2:00 a.m., he responded: "No sir, I don't. But it
would ... it is quite possible that that happened. . ." (WJC 8/17/98
GJ, p. 115; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 567)

And when he was asked whether
he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to continue the cover stories of "coming
to see Betty" or "bringing the letters," he answered: "I don't remember
exactly what I told her that night." (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 117; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 565)

Six days earlier, he had become
aware that Paula Jones' lawyers were now able to inquire about other
women. Ms. Lewinsky could file a false affidavit, but it might not
work. It was absolutely essential that both parties told the same
story. He knew that he would lie if asked about Ms. Lewinsky, and he
wanted to make certain that she would lie also. That is why the
President of the United States called a twenty-four year old woman at
2:00 in the morning.

THE
EVIDENCE MOUNTS

But
the President had an additional problem. It was not enough that he (and
Ms. Lewinsky) simply deny the relationship. The evidence was beginning
to accumulate. Because of the emerging evidence, the President found it
necessary to re-evaluate his defense. By this time, the evidence was
establishing, through records and eyewitness accounts, that the
President and Monica Lewinsky were spending a significant amount of
time together in the Oval Office complex. It was no longer expedient
simply to refer to Ms. Lewinsky as a "groupie", "stalker", "clutch", or
"home wrecker" as the White House first attempted to do. The
unassailable facts were forcing the President to acknowledge some type
of relationship. But at this point, he still had the opportunity to
establish a non-sexual explanation for their meetings, since his DNA
had not yet been identified on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress.

NEED
FOR THE COVER STORY

Therefore, the President needed
Monica Lewinsky to go along with the cover story in order to provide an
innocent, intimate-free explanation for their frequent meetings. And
that innocent explanation came in the form of "document deliveries" and
"friendly chats with Betty Currie."

Significantly, when the
President was deposed on January 17, 1998, he used the exact same cover
stories that had been utilized by Ms. Lewinsky. In doing so, he stayed
consistent with any future Lewinsky testimony while still maintaining
his defense in the Jones lawsuit.

In the President's deposition,
he was asked whether he was ever alone with Monica Lewinsky. He
responded: "I don't recall. . . She - it seems to me she brought
things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever
time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words
and go, she was there." (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 52-53)

Additionally, when questions
were posed regarding Ms. Lewinsky's frequent visits to the Oval Office,
the President did not hesitate to mention Betty Currie in his answers,
for example:

And my recollection is that on
a couple of occasions after [the pizza party meeting],
she was there [in the oval office] but mysecretary, Betty Currie, was
there with her.
(WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 58)

Q. When was the last time you
spoke with Monica Lewinsky?

A. I'm trying to remember.
Probably sometime before Christmas. She came by to see Betty
sometime before Christmas. And she was there talking to her, and I
stuck my head out, said hello to her. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 68)

December 19, 1997

MS.
LEWINSKY IS SUBPOENAED

On December 19, 1997, Ms.
Lewinsky was subpoenaed to testify in a deposition scheduled for
January 23, 1998 in the Jones case. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 848)(Charts F and G) Extremely distraught, she immediately
called the President's closest friend, Vernon Jordan. As noted Ms.
Lewinsky testified that the President previously told her to call Betty
Currie if she was subpoenaed. She called Mr. Jordan instead because Ms.
Currie's brother recently died and she did not want to bother her. (ML
8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 128-129; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 848, 849)

VERNON
JORDAN'S ROLE

Mr. Jordan invited Ms. Lewinsky
to his office and she arrived shortly before 5 p.m., still extremely
distraught. Around this time, Mr. Jordan called the President and told
him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 145; H.Doc.
105-316, p. 1815)(Exhibit 1) During the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky,
which Mr. Jordan characterized as "disturbing" (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 100;
H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1716), she talked about her infatuation with the
President. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 150; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1724) Mr. Jordan
decided that he would call a lawyer for her. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 161;
H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1726)

MR.
JORDAN INFORMS THE PRESIDENT

That evening, Mr. Jordan met
with the President and relayed his conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. The
details are extremely important because the President, in his
deposition, did not recall that meeting. Mr. Jordan told the President
again that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, that he was concerned
about her fascination with the President, and that Ms. Lewinsky had
asked Mr. Jordan if he thought the President would leave the First
Lady. He also asked the President if he had sexual relations with Ms.
Lewinsky. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 169; H.Doc 105-3316, p. 1727) The President
was asked at his deposition:

Q. Did anyone other than your
attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a
subpoena in this case?

A. I don't
think so.

Q. Did you ever talk with
Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to
testify in this case?

A. Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce
Lindsey told me that she was, I think maybe that's the first person
told me she was. I want to be as accurate as I can. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep.,
pgs. 68-69)

In the grand jury, the
President first repeated his denial that Mr. Jordan told him Ms.
Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 39; H.Doc. 105-311,
p. 491) Then, when given more specific facts, he admitted that he
"knows now" that he spoke with Mr. Jordan about the subpoena on the
night of December 19, but his "memory is not clear...." (WJC 8/17/98
GJ, pgs. 41-42; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 493-494) In an attempt to explain
away his false deposition testimony, the President testified in the
grand jury that he was trying to remember who told him first. (WJC
8/17/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 492-493) But that was not the
question. So his answer was false and misleading. When one considers
the nature of the conversation between the President and Mr. Jordan,
the suggestion that it would be forgotten defies common sense.

December 28, 1997

December 28, 1997 is a crucial
date, because the evidence shows that the President made false and
misleading statements to the federal court, the federal grand jury and
the Congress of the United States about the events on that date. (Chart
J) It is also a date on which he obstructed justice.

THE
PRESIDENT'S ACCOUNT

The President testified that it
was "possible" that he invited Ms. Lewinsky to the White House for this
visit. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 33; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 485) He admitted that
he "probably" gave Ms. Lewinsky the most gifts he had ever given her on
that date, (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 35; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 487) and that he
had given her gifts on other occasions. (WJC 8/6/98 GJ, p. 35)(Chart D)
Among the many gifts the President gave Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 was
a bear that he said was a symbol of strength. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 176;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 896) Yet only two-and-a-half weeks later, the
President forgot that he had given any gifts to Ms. Lewinsky.

As an attorney, the President
knew that the law will not tolerate someone who says "I don't recall"
when that answer is unreasonable under the circumstances. He also knew
that, under those circumstances, his answer in the deposition could not
be believed. When asked in the grand jury why he was unable to
remember, even though he had given Ms. Lewinsky so many gifts only
two-and-a-half weeks before the deposition, the President put forth an
obviously contrived explanation.

I think what I meant there was
I don't recall what they were, not that I don't recall whether I had
given them. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 51; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 503)

RESPONSE
TO COMMITTEE REQUESTS

The
President adopted that same answer in Response No. 42 to the House
Judiciary Committee's Requests For Admission. (Exhibit 18) He was not
asked in the deposition to identify the gifts. He was simply asked,
"Have you ever" given gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. The law does not allow a
witness to insert unstated premises or mental reservations into the
question to make his answer technically true, if factually false. The
essence of lying is in deception, not in words.

The President's answer was
false. The evidence also proves that his explanation to the grand jury
and to the Committee is also false. The President would have us believe
that he was able to analyze questions as they were being asked, and
pick up such things as verb tense in an attempt to make his statements
at least literally true. But when he was asked a simple,
straight-forward question, he did not understand it. Neither his answer
in the deposition nor his attempted explanation is reasonable or true.

TESTIMONY
CONCERNING GIFTS

The President was asked in the
deposition if Monica Lewinsky ever gave him gifts. He responded, "once
or twice." (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 77) This is also false testimony
calculated to obstruct justice. He answered this question in his
Response to the House Judiciary Committee by saying that he receives
numerous gifts, and he did not focus on the precise number. (Exhibit
18) The law again does not support the President's position. An
answer that baldly understates a numerical fact in response to a
specific quantitative inquiry can be deemed technically true but
actually false. For example, a witness is testifying falsely if he says
he went to the store five times when in fact he had gone fifty, even
though technically he had also gone five times. So too, when the
President answered once or twice in the face of evidence that Ms.
Lewinsky was frequently bringing gifts, he was lying. (Chart C)

CONCEALMENT
OF GIFTS

On December 28, one of the most
blatant efforts to obstruct justice and conceal evidence occurred. Ms.
Lewinsky testified that she discussed with the President the fact that
she had been subpoenaed and that the subpoena called for her to produce
gifts. She recalled telling the President that the subpoena requested a
hat pin, and that caused her concern. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 151-152;
H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 871-872) The President told her that it "bothered"
him, too. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 66; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1122) Ms. Lewinsky
then suggested that she take the gifts somewhere, or give them to
someone, maybe to Betty. The President answered: "I don't know" or "Let
me think about that." (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 152-153; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs.
872-873) (Chart L) Later that day, Ms. Lewinsky got a call from Ms.
Currie, who said: "I understand you have something to give me" or "the
President said you have something to give me." (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs.
154-155; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 874-875) Ms. Currie has a fuzzy memory
about this incident, but says that "the best she can remember," Ms
Lewinsky called her. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, p. 105; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 581)

THE
CELL PHONE RECORD

There is key evidence that Ms.
Currie's fuzzy recollection is wrong. Ms. Lewinsky said that she
thought Ms. Currie called from her cell phone. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs.
154-155) (Chart K, Exhibit 2) Ms. Currie's cell phone record
corroborates Ms. Lewinsky and proves conclusively that Ms. Currie
called Monica from her cell phone several hours after she had left the
White House. Moreover, Ms. Currie herself later testified that Ms.
Lewinsky's memory may be better than hers on this point. (BC 5/6/98 GJ,
p. 126; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584) The facts prove that the President
directed Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts.

MS.
CURRIE'S LATER ACTIONS

That conclusion is buttressed
by Ms. Currie's actions. If Ms. Lewinsky had placed the call requesting
a gift exchange, Ms. Currie would logically ask the reason for such a
transfer. Ms. Lewinsky was giving her a box of gifts from the President
yet she did not tell the President of this strange request. She simply
took the gifts and placed them under her bed without asking a single
question. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 57-58; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 557; BC 5/6/98
GJ, pgs. 105-108, 114; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 581-582)

The President stated in his
Response to questions No. 24 and 25 from the House Committee that he
was not concerned about the gifts. (Exhibit 18) In fact, he said that
he recalled telling Monica that if the Jones lawyers request gifts, she
should turn them over. The President testified that he is "not sure" if
he knew the subpoena asked for gifts. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 42-43;
H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 494-495) Would Monica Lewinsky and the President
discuss turning over gifts to the Jones lawyers if Ms. Lewinsky had not
told him that the subpoena asked for gifts? On the other hand, if he
knew the subpoena requested gifts, why would he give Ms. Lewinsky more
gifts on December 28? Ms. Lewinsky's testimony reveals the answer. She
said that she never questioned "that we were ever going to do anything
but keep this private" and that meant to take "whatever appropriate
steps needed to be taken" to keep it quiet. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 166;
H.Doc. 1055-311, p. 886) The only logical inference is that the gifts
-- including the bear symbolizing strength -- were a tacit reminder to
Ms. Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship -- even in the face
of a federal subpoena.

THE
PRESIDENT'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

Furthermore, the President, at
various times in his deposition, seriously misrepresented the nature of
his meeting with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 in order to obstruct the
administration of justice. First, he was asked: "Did she tell you she
had been served with a subpoena in this case?" The President answered
flatly: "No. I don't know if she had been." (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 68)

He was also asked if he "ever
talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility of her testifying."
"I'm not sure...," he said. He then added that he may have joked to her
that the Jones lawyers might subpoena every woman he has ever spoken
to, and that "I don't think we ever had more of a conversation than
that about it...." (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 70) Not only does Monica
Lewinsky directly contradict this testimony, but the President also
directly contradicted himself before the grand jury. Speaking of his
December 28, 1997 meeting, he said that he "knew by then, of course,
that she had gotten a subpoena" and that they had a
"conversation about the possibility of her testifying." (WJC
8/17/98 Dep., pgs. 35-36) Remember, he had this conversation about her
testimony only two-and-a-half weeks before his deposition. Again, his
version is not reasonable.

January 5 - 9, 1998

MS.
LEWINSKY SIGNS THE AFFIDAVIT AND GETS A JOB

The President knew that Monica
Lewinsky was going to execute a false Affidavit. He was so certain of
the content that when she asked if he wanted to see it, he told her no,
that he had seen fifteen of them. (ML 8/2/98 Int.,
p. 3; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1489) He got his information from discussions
with Ms. Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan generally about the content of the
Affidavit. Moreover, the President had suggested the Affidavit himself
and he trusted Mr. Jordan to be certain the mission was accomplished.

ADDITIONAL
PRESIDENTIAL ADVICE

In the afternoon of January 5,
1998, Ms. Lewinsky met with her lawyer, Mr. Carter, to discuss the
Affidavit.(ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 192; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 912) Her lawyer
asked her some hard questions about how she got her job. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
p.195; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 915) After the meeting, she called Betty
Currie and said that she wanted to speak to the President before she
signed anything. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p.195; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 915) Ms.
Lewinsky and the President discussed the issue of how she would answer
under oath if asked about how she got her job at the Pentagon. (ML
8/6/98 GJ, p. 197; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 917) The President told her:
"Well, you could always say that the people in Legislative Affairs got
it for you or helped you get it." (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p.197; H.Doc. 105-311,
p. 917) That, too, is false and misleading.

VERNON
JORDAN'S NEW ROLE

The President was also kept
advised as to the contents of the Affidavit by Vernon Jordan. (VJ
5/5/98 GJ, p. 224; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1828) On January 6, 1998, Ms.
Lewinsky picked up a draft of the Affidavit from Mr. Carter's office.
(ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 199; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 919) She delivered a copy to
Mr. Jordan's office, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 200; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 920)
because she wanted Mr. Jordan to look at the Affidavit in the belief
that if Vernon Jordan gave his imprimatur, the President would also
approve. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 194-195; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 914,
915)(Chart M) Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan conferred about the contents
and agreed to delete a paragraph inserted by Mr. Carter which might
open a line of questions concerning whether she had been alone with the
President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 200; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 920)(Exhibit 3)
Mr. Jordan maintained that he had nothing to do with the details of the
Affidavit. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1735) He admits,
though, that he spoke with the President after conferring with Ms.
Lewinsky about the changes made to her Affidavit. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p.
218; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1827)

On January 8, 1998, Mr. Jordan
arranged an interview for Ms. Lewinsky with MacAndrews and Forbes in
New York. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 206; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 926) The interview
went poorly, so Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan and informed him. (ML
8/6/98 GJ, p. 206; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 926) Mr. Jordan, who had done
nothing to assist Ms. Lewinsky's job search from early November to mid
December, then called MacAndrews and Forbes CEO, Ron Perelman, to "make
things happen, if they could happen." (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 231; H.Doc.
105-316, p. 1829) Mr. Jordan called Ms. Lewinsky back and told her not
to worry. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 208-209; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 928-929)
That evening, Ms. Lewinsky was called by MacAndrews and Forbes and told
that she would be given more interviews the next morning.(ML 8/6/98 GJ,
p. 209; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 929)

After Ms. Lewinsky had spent
months looking for a job -- since July according to the President's
lawyers -- Vernon Jordan made the critical call to a CEO the day after
the false Affidavit was signed. Mr. Perelman testified that Mr. Jordan
had never called him before about a job recommendation. (Perelman
4/23/98 Dep., p.11; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3281) Mr. Jordan, on the other
hand, said that he called Mr. Perelman to recommend for hiring: 1)
former Mayor Dinkins of New York; 2) a very talented attorney from Akin
Gump; 3) a Harvard business school graduate; and 4) Monica Lewinsky.
(VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 58-59; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1747) Even if Mr.
Perelman's testimony is mistaken, Ms. Lewinsky's qualifications do not
compare to those of the individuals previously recommended by Mr.
Jordan.

Vernon Jordan was well aware that
people with whom Ms. Lewinsky worked at the White House did not like
her (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 43, 59) and that she did not like her Pentagon
job. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 43-44; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs 1706, 1707) Mr.
Jordan was asked if at "any point during this process you wondered
about her qualifications for employment?" He answered: "No, because
that was not my judgment to make." (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 44; H.Doc.
105-316, p. 1707) Yet, when he called Mr. Perelman the day after she
signed the Affidavit, he referred to Ms. Lewinsky as a bright young
girl who is "terrific." (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 10; H.Doc. 105-316,
p. 3281) Mr. Jordan testified that she had been pressing him for a job
and voicing unrealistic expectations concerning positions and salary.
(VJ 3/5/98 GJ, pgs. 37-38; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1742) Moreover, she
narrated a disturbing story about the President leaving the First Lady,
and how the President was not spending enough time with her. Yet, none
of that gave Mr. Jordan pause in making the recommendation, especially
after Monica was subpoenaed. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ,
pgs. 156-157; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1725)

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FALSE
AFFIDAVIT

Monica Lewinsky's
false Affidavit enabled the President, through his attorneys, to assert
at his January 17, 1998 deposition " . . . there is absolutely no sex
of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton . . .
." (WJC, 1/17/98 Dep., p. 54) When questioned by his own attorney in
the deposition, the President stated specifically that paragraph 8 of
Ms. Lewinsky's Affidavit was "absolutely true." (WJC, 1/17/98 Dep., p.
204) The President later affirmed the truth of that statement when
testifying before the grand jury. (WJC, 8/17/98 GJ, p. 20-21; H.Doc.
105-311, pg. 473) Paragraph 8 of Ms. Lewinsky's Affidavit states:

I have never had a sexual
relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a
sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits
in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or
other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.

Significantly, Ms.
Lewinsky reviewed the draft Affidavit on January 6, and signed it on
January 7 after deleting a reference to being alone with the President.
She showed a copy of the signed Affidavit to Vernon Jordan, who called
the President and told him that she had signed it. (VJ, 3/5/98 GJ, pgs.
24-26; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1728, 1739; VJ, 5/5/98 GJ, p. 222; H.Doc.
105-316, p. 1828)

THE RUSH TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT

For the affidavit to work
for the President in precluding questions by the Jones attorneys
concerning Ms. Lewinsky, it had to be filed with the Court and provided
to the President's attorneys in time for his deposition on January 17.
On January 14, the President's lawyers called Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer and
left a message, presumably to find out if he had filed the Affidavit
with the Court. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-316, p.
423)(Chart O) On January 15, the President's attorneys called her
attorney twice. When they finally reached him, they requested a copy of
the Affidavit and asked him, "Are we still on time?" (Carter 6/18/98
GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-216, p. 423) Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer faxed a copy
on the 15th. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 423) The
President's counsel was aware of its contents and used it powerfully in
the deposition.

Ms. Lewinsky's
lawyer called the court in Arkansas twice on January 15 to ensure that
the Affidavit could be filed on Saturday, January 17.(Carter 6/18/98
GJ, pgs. 124-125; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 423-424)(Exhibit 5) He finished
the Motion to Quash Ms. Lewinsky's deposition in the early morning
hours of January 16 and mailed it to the Court with the false Affidavit
attached, for Saturday delivery. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 134; H.Doc.
105-316, p. 426) The President's lawyers left him another message on
January 16, saying, "You'll know what it's about." (Carter 6/18/98 GJ,
p. 135; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 426) Obviously, the President needed that
Affidavit to be filed with the Court to support his plans to mislead
Ms. Jones' attorneys in the deposition, and thereby obstruct justice.

By the time the President
concluded his deposition on January 17, he knew that someone was
talking about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He also knew that the
only person who had personal knowledge was Ms. Lewinsky herself. The
cover stories that he and Ms. Lewinsky created, and that he used
himself during the deposition, were now in jeopardy. It became
imperative that he not only contact Ms. Lewinsky, but that he obtain
corroboration of his account of the relationship from his trusted
secretary, Ms. Currie. At around 7 p.m. on the night of the deposition,
the President called Ms. Currie and asked that she come in the
following day, Sunday. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 154-155; H.Doc. 105-316, p.
701) (Exhibit 6) Ms. Currie could not recall the President ever before
calling her that late at home on a Saturday night. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p.
69; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559) (Chart S) Sometime in the early morning
hours of January 18, 1998, the President learned of a news report
concerning Ms. Lewinsky released earlier that day. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p.
142-143; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 594-595)(Exhibit 14)

THE
TAMPERING WITH THE WITNESS, BETTY CURRIE

As the charts indicate,
between 11:49 a.m. and 2:55 p.m., there were three phone calls between
Mr. Jordan and the President. (Exhibit 7) At about 5 p.m., Ms. Currie
met with the President. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 67; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 558)
He told her that he had just been deposed and that the attorneys asked
several questions about Monica Lewinsky. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 69-70;
H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559) He then made a series of statements to Ms.
Currie: (Chart T)

During Betty Currie's
grand jury testimony, she was asked whether she believed that the
President wished her to agree with the statements:

Q. Would it be fair to
say, then - based on the way he stated [these five points] and the
demeanor that he was using at the time that he stated it to you - that
he wished you to
agree with that statement?

A. I can't speak for him,
but -

Q. How did you take it?
Because you told us at these [previous] meetings in the last several
days that that is how you took it.

A. (Nodding)

Q. And you're nodding you
head, "yes", is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay, with regard to
the statement that the President made to you,"You remember I was never
really alone with Monica, right?" Was that also a statement that, as
far as you took, that he wished you to agree with that?

A. Correct.

(BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 74;
H.Doc. 105-316, 559)

Though Ms. Currie would
later intimate that she did not necessarily feel pressured by the
President, she did state that she felt the President was seeking her
agreement (or disagreement) with those statements. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p.
27; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 669)

WAS
THIS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

The President essentially
admitted to making these statements when he knew they were not true.
Consequently, he had painted himself into a legal corner. Understanding
the seriousness of the President "coaching" Ms. Currie, the argument
has been made that those statements to her could not constitute
obstruction because she had not been subpoenaed, and the President did
not know that she was a potential witness at the time. This argument is
refuted by both the law and the facts.

The United States Court of
Appeals rejected this argument, and stated, "[A] person may be
convicted of obstructing justice if he urges or persuades a prospective
witness to give false testimony. Neither must the target be scheduled
to testify at the time of the offense, nor must he or she actually give
testimony at a later time." United States v. Shannon, 836 F.2d
1125, 1128 (8th Cir. 1988) (citing, e.g., United States
v. Friedland, 660 F.2d 919, 931 (3rd Cir. 1981)).

Of course Ms. Currie was a
prospective witness, and the President clearly wanted her to be deposed
to corroborate him, as his testimony demonstrates. The President claims
that he called Ms. Currie into work on a Sunday night only to find out
what she knew. But the President knew the truth about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky, and if he had told the truth during his deposition
the day before, then he would have no reason to worry about what Ms.
Currie knew. More importantly, the President's demeanor, Ms. Currie's
reaction to his demeanor, and the blatant lies that he suggested
clearly prove that the President was not merely interviewing Ms.
Currie. Rather, he was looking for corroboration for his false
cover-up, and that is why he coached her.

JANUARY
18

THE
SEARCH FOR MS. LEWINSKY

Very soon after his Sunday
meeting with Ms. Currie, at 5:12 p.m., the flurry of telephone calls in
search of Monica Lewinsky began. (Chart S) Between 5:12 p.m. and 8:28
p.m., Ms. Currie paged Ms. Lewinsky four times. "Kay" is a reference to
a code name Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie agreed to when contacting one
another. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 216; H.Doc., 105-311, pg. 936) At 11:02
p.m., the President called Ms. Currie at home to ask if she had reached
Lewinsky. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 160; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 702)

JANUARY
19

THE
SEARCH CONTINUES

The following morning,
January 19, Ms. Currie continued to work diligently on behalf of the
President. Between 7:02 a.m. and 8:41 a.m., she paged Ms. Lewinsky
another five times. (Chart S)(Exhibit 8) After the 8:41 page, Ms.
Currie called the President at 8:43 a.m. and said that she was unable
to reach Ms. Lewinsky. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 161-162; H.Doc. 105-316, p.
703) One minute later, at 8:44 a.m., she again paged Ms. Lewinsky. This
time Ms. Currie's page stated "Family Emergency," apparently in an
attempt to alarm Ms. Lewinsky into calling back. That may have been the
President's idea, since Ms. Currie had just spoken with him. The
President was obviously quite concerned because he called Betty Currie
only six minutes later, at 8:50 a.m. Immediately thereafter, at 8:51
a.m., Ms. Currie tried a different tact, sending the message: "Good
news." Again, perhaps at the President's suggestion. If bad news does
not get her to call, try good news. Ms. Currie said that she was trying
to encourage Ms. Lewinsky to call, but there was no sense of "urgency."
(BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 165; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 704) Ms. Currie's
recollection of why she was calling was again fuzzy. She said at one
point that she believes the President asked her to call Ms. Lewinsky,
and she thought she was calling just to tell her that her name came up
in the deposition. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 162; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 703)
Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed; of course her name came up in the
deposition. There was obviously another and more important reason the
President needed to get in touch with her.

MR.
JORDAN AND MS. LEWINSKY'S LAWYERS JOIN THE SEARCH

At 8:56 a.m., the
President telephoned Vernon Jordan, who then joined in the activity.
Over a course of twenty-four minutes, from 10:29 to 10:53 a.m., Mr.
Jordan called the White House three times, paged Ms. Lewinsky, and
called Ms. Lewinsky's attorney, Frank Carter. Between 10:53 a.m. and
4:54 p.m., there are continued calls between Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky's
attorney and individuals at the White House.

MS.
LEWINSKY REPLACES HER LAWYER

Later that afternoon, at
4:54 p.m., Mr. Jordan called Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter relayed that he had
been told he no longer represented Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 141;
H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1771) Mr. Jordan then made feverish attempts to
reach the President or someone at the White House to tell them the bad
news, as represented by the six calls between 4:58 p.m. and 5:22 p.m.
Vernon Jordan said that he tried to relay this information to the White
House because "[t]he President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job,"
and he thought it was "information that they ought to have." (VJ 6/9/98
GJ, pgs. 45-46; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1968) (Chart Q) Mr. Jordan then
called Mr. Carter back at 5:14 p.m. to go over what they had already
talked about. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 146; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1772) Mr.
Jordan finally reached the President at 5:56 p.m. and told him that Mr.
Carter had been fired. (VJ 6/9/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1970)

THE
REASON FOR THE URGENT SEARCH

This activity shows how
important it was for the President of the United States to find Monica
Lewinsky to learn to whom she was talking. Betty Currie was in charge
of contacting Ms. Lewinsky. The President had just completed a
deposition in which he provided false and misleading testimony about
his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. She was a co-conspirator in hiding
this relationship from the Jones attorneys, and he was losing control
over her. The President never got complete control over her again.

ARTICLE
I

FALSE
AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS

TO
THE GRAND JURY

Article I addresses the
President's perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand
jury. Four categories of false grand jury testimony are listed in the
Article. Some salient examples of false statements are described below.
When judging the statements made and the answers given, it is vital to
recall that the President spent literally days preparing his testimony
with his lawyer. He and his attorney were fully aware that the
testimony would center around his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and
his deposition testimony in the Jones case.

GRAND JURY
TESTIMONY

On August 17, after six
invitations, the President of the United States appeared before a grand
jury of his fellow citizens and took an oath to tell the complete
truth. The President proceeded to equivocate and engage in legalistic
fencing; he also lied. The entire testimony was calculated to mislead
and deceive the grand jury and to obstruct its process, and eventually
to deceive the American people. He set the tone at the very beginning.
In the grand jury a witness can tell the truth, lie or assert his
privileges against self incrimination. (Chart Y) President Clinton was
given a fourth choice. The President was permitted to read a statement.
(Chart Z; WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 8-9)

THE PRESIDENT'S
PREPARED STATEMENT

That statement itself is
demonstrably false in many particulars. President Clinton claims that
he engaged in inappropriate conduct with Ms. Lewinsky "on certain
occasions in early 1996 and once in 1997." Notice he did not mention
1995. There was a reason. On three "occasions" in 1995, Ms. Lewinsky
said she engaged in sexual contact with the President. Ms. Lewinsky was
a twenty-one year old intern at the time.

The President specifically
and unequivocally states, "[The encounters] did not constitute sexual
relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17,
1998 deposition." That assertion is patently false. It is directly
contradicted by the corroborated testimony of Monica Lewinsky. (See eg:
ML 8/20/98 GJ, pgs. 31-32; H.Doc. 311, p. 1174; ML 8/26/98 Dep., p. 25,
30; H.Doc. 311, pgs. 1357, 1358)

Evidence indicates that
the President and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in "sexual relations" as the
President understood the term to be defined at his deposition and as
any reasonable person would have understood the term to have been
defined.

Contrary to his statement
under oath, the President's conduct during the 1995 visits and numerous
additional visits did constitute "sexual relations" as he understood
the term to be defined at his deposition. Before the grand jury, the
President admitted that directly touching or kissing another person's
breast, or directly touching another person's genitalia with the intent
to arouse, would be "sexual relations" as the term was defined. (WJC
8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 94-95; H.Doc 105-311, pgs. 546-547) However, the
President maintained that he did not engage in such conduct. (Id.)
These statements are contradicted by Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and the
testimony of numerous individuals with whom she contemporaneously
shared the details of her encounters with the President. Moreover, the
theory that Ms. Lewinsky repeated and unilaterally performed acts on
the President while he tailored his conduct to fit a contorted
definition of "sexual relations" which he had not contemplated at the
time of the acts, defies common sense.

Moreover, the President
had not even formed the contorted interpretation of "sexual relations"
which he asserted in the grand jury until after his deposition had
concluded. This is demonstrated by the substantial evidence revealing
the President's state of mind during his deposition testimony. First,
the President continuously denied at his deposition any fact that would
cause the Jones lawyers to believe that he and Ms. Lewinsky had
any type of improper relationship, including a denial that they had a
sexual affair, (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 78) not recalling if they were
ever alone, (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53, 59) and not recalling
whether Ms. Lewinsky had ever given him gifts. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pg.
75) Second, the President testified that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit
denying a sexual relationship was "absolutely true" when, even by his
current reading of the definition, it is absolutely false. (WJC 1/17/98
Dep., p. 204) Third, the White House produced a document entitled
"January 24, 1998 Talking Points," stating flatly that the President's
definition of "sexual relations" included oral sex. (Chart W) Fourth,
the President made statements to staff members soon after the
deposition, saying that he did not have sexual relations, including
oral sex, with Mr. Lewinsky, (Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pg. 92; H.Doc.
105-316, p. 3311) and that she threatened to tell people she and the
President had an affair when he rebuffed her sexual advances.
(Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, p. 59; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 185) Fifth, President
Clinton's Answer filed in Federal District Court in response to Paula
Jones' First Amended Complaint states unequivocally that "President
Clinton denies that he engaged in any improper conduct with respect to
plaintiff or any other woman." (Answer of Defendant William Jefferson
Clinton, December 17, 1997, p. 8, para. 39) Sixth, in President
Clinton's sworn Answers to Interrogatories Numbers 10 and 11, as
amended, he flatly denied that he had sexual relations with any federal
employee. The President filed this Answer prior to his deposition.
Finally, as described below, the President sat silently while his
attorney, referring to Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, represented to the
court that there was no sex of any kind or in any manner between the
President and Ms. Lewinsky. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pg. 54)

This circumstantial
evidence reveals the President's state of mind at the time of the
deposition: his concern was not in technically or legally accurate
answers, but in categorically denying anything improper. His grand jury
testimony about his state of mind during the deposition is false.

REASONS FOR THE
FALSE TESTIMONY

The President did not lie
to the grand jury to protect himself from embarrassment, as he could no
longer deny the affair. Before his grand jury testimony, the
President's semen had been identified by laboratory test on Ms.
Lewinsky's dress, and during his testimony, he admitted an
"inappropriate intimate relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky, In fact, when
he testified before the grand jury, he was only hours away from
admitting the affair on national television. Embarrassment was
inevitable. But, if he truthfully admitted the details of his
encounters with Ms. Lewinsky to the grand jury, he would be
acknowledging that he lied under oath during his deposition when he
claimed that he did not engage in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky.
(WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 78, 109, 204) Instead, he chose to lie, not to
protect his family or the dignity of his office, but to protect himself
from criminal liability for his perjury in the Jones case.

ADDITIONAL
FALSITY IN THE PREPARED STATEMENT

The President's statement
continued, "I regret that what began as a friendship came to include
this conduct[.]" (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 9; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 461) The
truth is much more troubling. As Ms. Lewinsky testified, her
relationship with the President began with flirting, including Ms.
Lewinsky showing the President her underwear. (ML 7/30/98 Int., p. 5;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1431) As Ms. Lewinsky candidly admitted, she was
surprised that the President remembered her name after their first two
sexual encounters. (ML 8/26/98 Dep., p. 25; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1295)

REASON FOR THE
FALSITY

The President's prepared
statement, fraught with untruths, was not an answer the President
delivered extemporaneously to a particular question. It was carefully
drafted testimony which the President read and relied upon throughout
his deposition. The President attempted to use the statement to
foreclose questioning on an incriminating topic on nineteen separate
occasions. Yet, this prepared testimony, which along with other
testimony provides the basis for Article I, Item 1, actually
contradicts his sworn deposition testimony.

CONTRARY
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

In this statement, the
President admits that he and Ms. Lewinsky were alone on a number of
occasions. He refused to make this admission in his deposition in the Jones
case. During the deposition, the following exchange occurred:

Q Mr. President, before
the break, we were talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time were you
and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office?

A I don't recall, but as I
said, when she worked in the legislative affairs office, they always
had somebody there on the weekends. I typically work some on the
weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She - it
seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In
that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop if off, exchange a
few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific
recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the
Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do
some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.

Q So I understand, your
testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her,
but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?

A Yes, that's correct.
It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought
something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the
only person there. That's possible. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53)

After telling this verbose
lie under oath, the President was given an opportunity to correct
himself. This exchange followed:

Q At any time have you and
Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House?

A I think I testified to
that earlier. I think that there is a, it is - I have no specific
recollection, but it seems to me that she was on duty on a couple of
occasions working for the legislative affairs office and brought me
some things to sign, something on the weekend. That's - I have a
general memory of that.

Q Do you remember anything
that was said in any of those meetings?

A No. You know, we just
had conversation, I don't remember. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53)

Before the grand jury, the
President maintained that he testified truthfully at his deposition, a
lie which provides, in part, the basis for Article I, Item 2. He
stated, "My goal in this deposition was to be truthful, but not
particularly helpful ... I was determined to walk through the mind
field of this deposition without violating the law, and I believe I
did." (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 80; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 532) But contrary to
his deposition testimony, he certainly was alone with Ms. Lewinsky when
she was not delivering papers, as the President conceded in his
prepared grand jury statement.

In other words, the
President's assertion before the grand jury that he was alone with Ms.
Lewinsky, but that he testified truthfully in his deposition, in
inconsistent. Yet, to this day, both the President and his attorneys
have insisted that he did not lie at his deposition and that he did not
lie when he swore under oath that he did not lie at his deposition.

In addition to his lie
about not recalling being alone with Ms. Lewinsky, the President told
numerous other lies at his deposition. All of those lies are
incorporated in Article I, Item 2.

TESTIMONY
CONCERNING THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT

Article I, Item 3 charges
the President with providing perjurious, false and misleading testimony
before a federal grand jury concerning false and misleading statements
his attorney Robert Bennett made to Judge Wright at the President's
deposition. In one statement, while objecting to questions regarding
Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Bennett misled the Court, perhaps knowingly, stating,
"Counsel [for Ms. Jones] is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed,
has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is
absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with
President Clinton[.]" (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 53-54) When Judge Wright
interrupted Mr. Bennett and expressed her concern that he might be
coaching the President, Mr. Bennett responded, "In preparation of the
witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms.
Lewinsky's affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he
doesn't know[.]" (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 54) (Emphasis added)

When asked before the
grand jury about his statement to Judge Wright, the President
testified, "I'm not even sure I paid attention to what he was saying."
(WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 24; H.Doc. 105-3131, p. 476) He added, "I didn't
pay much attention to this conversation, which is why, when you started
asking be about this, I asked to see the deposition." (WJC 8/17/98 GJ,
p. 24;; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 477) Finally, "I don't believe I ever even
focused on what Mr. Bennett said in the exact words he did until I
started reading this transcript carefully for this hearing. That
moment, the whole argument just passed my by." (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 29;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 481)

This grand jury testimony
defies common sense. During his deposition testimony, the President
admittedly misled Ms. Jones' attorneys about his affair with Ms.
Lewinsky, which continued while Ms. Jones' lawsuit was pending, because
he did not want the truth to be known. Of course, when Ms. Lewinsky's
name is mentioned during the deposition, particularly in connection
with sex, the President is going to listen. Any doubts as to whether he
listened to Mr. Bennett's representations are eliminated by watching
the videotape of the President's deposition. The videotape shows the
President looking directly at Mr. Bennett, paying close attention to
his argument to Judge Wright.

FALSE TESTIMONY
CONCERNING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Article I, Item 4 concerns
the President's grand jury perjury regarding his efforts to influence
the testimony of witnesses and his efforts to impede discovery in the Jones
v. Clinton lawsuit. These lies are perhaps the most troubling, as
the President used them in an attempt to conceal his criminal actions
and the abuse of his office.

For example, the President
testified before the grand jury that he recalled telling Ms. Lewinsky
that if Ms. Jones' lawyers requested the gifts exchanged between Ms.
Lewinsky and the President, she should provide them. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ,
p. 43; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 495) He stated, "And I told her that if they
asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had, that
that's what the law was." (Id.) This testimony is false, as
demonstrated by both Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and common sense.

Ms. Lewinsky testified
that on December 28, 1997, she discussed with the President the
subpoena's request for her to produce gifts, including a hat pin. She
told the President that it concerned her, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 151; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 871) and he said that it "bothered" him too. (ML 8/20/98
GJ, p. 66; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1122) Ms. Lewinsky then suggested that
she give the gifts to someone, maybe to Betty. But rather than
instructing her to turn the gifts over to Ms. Jones' attorneys, the
President replied, "I don't know" or "Let me think about that." (ML
8/6/98 GJ, p. 152; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 872) Several hours later, Ms.
Currie called Ms. Lewinsky on her cellular phone and said, "I
understand you have something to give me" or "the President said you
have something to give me." (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154-155; H.Doc.
105-311, pgs. 874-875)

Although Ms. Currie agrees
that she picked up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie testified
that "the best" she remembers is that Ms. Lewinsky called her. (BC
5/6/98 GJ, p. 105; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 581) She later conceded that Ms.
Lewinsky's memory may be better than hers on this point. (BC 5/6/98 GJ,
p. 126; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584) A telephone record corroborates Ms.
Lewinsky, revealing that Ms. Currie did call her from her cellular
phone several hours after Ms. Lewinsky's meeting with the president.
The only logical reason Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky to retrieve
gifts from the President is that the President told her to do so. He
would not have given this instruction if he wished the gifts to be
given to Ms. Jones' attorneys.

TESTIMONY
CONCERNING MS. CURRIE

The President again
testified falsely when he told the grand jury that he was simply trying
to "refresh" his recollection when he made a series of statements to
Ms. Currie the day after his deposition. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 131;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 583) Ms. Currie testified that she met with the
President at about 5:00 P.M. on January 18, 1998, and he proceeded to
make these statements to her:

Ms. Currie testified that
these were more like statements than questions, and that, as far as she
understood, the President wanted her to agree with the statements. (BC
1/27/98 GJ, p. 74; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559)

The President was asked
specifically about these statements before the grand jury. He did not
deny them, but said that he was "trying to refresh [his] memory about
what the facts were." (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 131; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 583)
He added that he wanted to "know what Betty's memory was about what she
heard," (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 506) and that he was
"trying to get as much information as quickly as [he] could." (WJC
8/17/98 GJ, p. 56; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 508) Logic demonstrates that the
President's explanation is contrived and false.

A person does not refresh
his recollection by firing declarative sentences dressed up as leading
questions to his secretary. If the President was seeking information,
he would have asked Ms. Currie what she recalled. Additionally, a
person does not refresh his recollection by asking questions concerning
factual scenarios of which the listener was unaware, or worse, of which
the declarant and the listener knew were false. How would Ms. Currie
know if she was always there when Ms. Lewinsky was there? Ms. Currie,
in fact, acknowledged during her grand jury testimony that Ms. Lewinsky
could have visited the President at the White House when Ms. Currie was
not there. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 65-66; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 679) Ms.
Currie also testified that there were several occasions when the
President and Ms. Lewinsky were in the Oval Office or study area
without anyone else present. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 32-33, 36-38; H.Doc.
105-316, pgs. 552-553)

More importantly, the
President admitted in his statement to the grand jury that he was alone
with Ms. Lewinsky on several occasions. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 9-10;
H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 460-461) Thus, by his own admission, his statement
to Ms. Currie about never being alone with Ms. Lewinsky was false. And
if they were alone together, Ms. Currie certainly could not say whether
the President touched Ms. Lewinsky or not.

The statement about
whether Ms. Currie could see and hear everything is also refuted by the
President's own grand jury testimony. During his "intimate" encounters
with Ms. Lewinsky, he ensured everyone, including Ms. Currie, was
excluded. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 53; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 505) Why would
someone refresh his recollection by making a false statement of fact to
a subordinate? The answer is obvious - he would not.

Lastly, the President
stated in the grand jury that he was "downloading" information in a
"hurry," apparently explaining that he made these statements because he
did not have time to listen to answers to open-ended questions. (WJC
8/17/98 GJ, p. 56; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 508) But, if he was in such a
hurry, why did the President not ask Ms. Currie to refresh his
recollection when he spoke with her on the telephone the previous
evening? He also has no adequate explanation as to why he could not
spend an extra five or 10 minutes with Ms. Currie on January 18 to get
her version of the events. In fact, Ms. Currie testified that she first
met the President on January 18 while he was on the White House putting
green, and he told her to go into the office and he would be in in a
few minutes. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 67-70; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 558-559)
And if he was in such a hurry, why did he repeat these statements to
Ms. Currie a few days later? (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 80-81; H.Doc.
105-316, pgs. 560-561) The reason for these statements had nothing to
do with time constraints or refreshing recollection; he had just
finished lying during the Jones deposition about these issues,
and he needed corroboration from his secretary.

TESTIMONY ABOUT
INFLUENCING AIDES

Not only did the President
lie about his attempts to influence Ms. Currie's testimony, but he lied
about his attempts to influence the testimony of some of his top aides.
Among the President's lies to his aides, described in detail later in
this brief, were that Ms. Lewinsky did not perform oral sex on him, and
that Ms. Lewinsky stalked him while he rejected her sexual demands.
These lies were then disseminated to the media and attributed to White
House sources. They were also disseminated to the grand jury.

When the president was
asked about these lies before the grand jury, he testified:

And so I said to them
things that were true about this relationship. That I used - in the
language I used, I said, there's nothing going on between us. That was
true. I said, I have not had sex with her as I defined it. That was
true. And did I hope that I never would have to be here on this day
giving this testimony? Of course.

But I also didn't want to
do anything to complicate this matter further. So I said things that
were true. They may have been misleading, and if they were I have to
take responsibility for it, and I'm sorry. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 106;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 558)

To accept this grand jury
testimony as truth, one must believe that many of the President's top
aides engaged in a concerted effort to lie to the grand jury in order
to incriminate him at the risk of subjecting themselves to a perjury
indictment. We suggest that it is illustrative of the President's
character that he never felt any compunction in exposing others to
false testimony charges, so long as he could conceal his own perjuries.
Simply put, such a conspiracy did not exist.

The above are merely
highlights of the President's grand jury perjury, and there are
numerous additional examples. In order to keep these lies in
perspective, three facts must be remembered. First, before the grand
jury, the President was not lying to cover up an affair and protect
himself from embarrassment, as concealing the affair was now
impossible. Second, the President could no longer argue that the facts
surrounding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were somehow irrelevant
or immaterial, as the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury
had mandates to explore them. Third, he cannot claim to have been
surprised or unprepared for questions about Ms. Lewinsky before the
grand jury, as he spent days with his lawyer, preparing responses to
such questions.

THE PRESIDENT'S
METHOD

Again, the President
carefully crafted his statements to give the appearance of being
candid, when actually his intent was the opposite. In addition,
throughout the testimony, whenever the President was asked a specific
question that could not be answered directly without either admitting
the truth or giving an easily provable false answer, he said, "I rely
on my statement." 19 times he relied on this false and misleading
statement; nineteen times, then, he repeated those lies in "answering"
questions propounded to him. (See eg. WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pg. 139; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 591)

THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE'S REQUEST

In an effort to avoid
unnecessary work and to bring its inquiry to an expeditious end, the
Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives submitted to the
President 81 requests to admit or deny specific facts relevant to this
investigation. (Exhibit 18) Although, for the most part, the questions
could have been answered with a simple "admit" or "deny," the President
elected to follow the pattern of selective memory, reference to other
testimony, blatant untruths, artful distortions, outright lies, and
half truths. When he did answer, he engaged in legalistic
hair-splitting in an obvious attempt to skirt the whole truth and to
deceive and obstruct the due proceedings of the Committee.

THE PRESIDENT'S
REPEATS HIS FALSITIES

Thus, on at least 23
questions, the President professed a lack of memory. This from a man
who is renowned for his remarkable memory, for his amazing ability to
recall details.

In at least 15 answers,
the President merely referred to "White House Records." He also
referred to his own prior testimony and that of others. He answered
several of the requests by merely restating the same deceptive answers
that he gave to the grand jury. We will point out several false
statements in this Brief.

In addition, the
half-truths, legalistic parsings, evasive and misleading answers were
obviously calculated to obstruct the efforts of the House Committee.
They had the effect of seriously hampering its ability to inquire and
to ascertain the truth. The President has, therefore, added obstruction
of an inquiry and an investigation before the Legislative Branch to his
obstructions of justice before the Judicial Branch of our
constitutional system of government.

THE
EARLY ATTACK ON MS. LEWINSKY

After his deposition, the
power and prestige of the Office of President was marshaled to destroy
the character and reputation of Monica Lewinsky, a young woman that had
been ill- used by the President. As soon as her name surfaced, the
campaign began to muzzle any possible testimony, and to attack the
credibility of witnesses, in a concerted effort to obstruct the due
administration of justice in a lawsuit filed by one female citizen of
Arkansas. It almost worked.

When the President
testified at his deposition that he had no sexual relations, sexual
affair or the like with Monica Lewinsky, he felt secure. Monica
Lewinsky, the only other witness was on board. She had furnished a
false affidavit also denying everything. Later, when he realized from
the January 18, 1998, Drudge Report that there were taped conversations
between Ms. Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, he had to develop a new story,
and he did. In addition, he recounted that story to White House aides
who passed it on to the grand jury in an effort to obstruct that
tribunal too.

On Wednesday, January 21,
1998, The Washington Post published a story entitled "Clinton
Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told
Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones' Lawyers." The White House
learned the substance of the Post story on the evening of
January 20, 1998.

MR.
BENNETT'S REMARK

After the President
learned of the existence of the story, he made a series of telephone
calls.

At 12:08 a.m. he called
his attorney, Mr. Bennett, and they had a conversation. The next
morning, Mr. Bennett was quoted in the Washington Post stating:

The President adamantly
denies he ever had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and she has
confirmed the truth of that." He added, "This story seems ridiculous
and I frankly smell a rat.

ADDITIONAL
CALLS

After that conversation,
the President had a half hour conversation with White House counsel,
Bruce Lindsey.

At 1:16 a.m., the
President called Betty Currie and spoke to her for 20 minutes.

He then called Bruce
Lindsey again.

At 6:30 a.m. the President
called Vernon Jordan.

After that, the President
again conversed with Bruce Lindsey.

This flurry of activity
was a prelude to the stories which the President would soon inflict
upon top White House aides and advisors.

THE
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS TO STAFF

ERSKINE
BOWLES

On the morning of January
21, 1998, the President met with White House Chief of Staff, Erskine
Bowles, and his two deputies, John Podesta and Sylvia Matthews.

Erskine Bowles recalled
entering the President's office at 9:00 a.m. that morning. He then
recounts the President's immediate words as he and two others entered
the Oval Office:

And he looked up at us and
he said the same thing he said to the American people.

He said, "I want you to
know I did not have sexual relationships with this woman, Monica
Lewinsky. I did not ask anybody to lie. And when the facts come out,
you'll understand."
(Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 239)

After the President made
that blanket denial, Mr. Bowles responded:

I said, "Mr. President, I
don't know what the facts are. I don't know if they're good, bad, or
indifferent. But whatever they are, you ought to get them out. And you
ought to get them out right now." (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc.
105-316, p. 239)

When counsel asked whether
the President responded to Bowles' suggestion that he tell the truth,
Bowles responded:

I don't think he made any
response, but he didn't disagree with me. (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84;
H.Doc. 105-316, p. 239)

JOHN
PODESTA

JANUARY
21, 1998

Deputy Chief John Podesta
also recalled a meeting with the President on the morning of January
21, 1998.

He testified before the
grand jury as to what occurred in the Oval Office that morning:

A. And we started off
meeting - we didn't - I don't think we said anything. And I think the
President directed this specifically to Mr. Bowles. He said, "Erskine,
I want you to know that this story is not true."

Q. What else did he say?

A. He said that - that he
had not had a sexual relationship with her, and that he never asked
anybody to lie. (Podesta, 6/16/98 GJ, p. 85; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3310)

JANUARY
23, 1998

Two days later, on January
23, 1998, Mr. Podesta had another discussion with the President:

I asked him how he was
doing, and he said he wass working on this draft and he said to me
that he never had sex with her, and that - and that he never asked -
you know, he repeated the denial, but he was extremely explicit in
saying he never had sex with her.

Then Podesta testified as
follows:

Q. Okay. Not explicit, in
the sense the he got more specific than sex, than the word "sex."

A. Yes, he was more
specific than that.

Q. Okay, share that with
us.

A. Well, I think he said -
he said that - there was some spate. Of, you know, what sex acts were
counted, and he said that he had never had sex with her in any way
whatsoever -

Later in the day on
January 21, 1998, the President called Sidney Blumenthal to his office.
It is interesting to note how the President's lies become more
elaborate and pronounced when he has time to concoct his newest line of
defense. When the President spoke to Mr. Bowles and Mr. Podesta, he
simply denied the story. But, by the time he spoke to Mr. Blumenthal,
the President has added three new angles to his defense strategy: (1)
he now portrays Monica Lewinsky as the aggressor; (2) he launches an
attack on her reputation by portraying her as a "stalker"; and (3) he
presents himself as the innocent victim being attacked by the forces of
evil.

Note well this
recollection by Mr. Blumenthal in his June 4, 1998 testimony: (Chart U)

And it was at this point
that he gave his account of what had happened to me and he said that
Monica - and it came very fast. He said, "Monica Lewinsky came at me
and made a sexual demand on me." He rebuffed her. He said, "I've gone
down that road before, I've caused pain for a lot of people and I'm not
going to do that again."

She threatened him. She
said that she would tell people they'd had an affair, that she was
known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she
had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the
stalker anymore. (Blumenthal, 6/4/98 GJ, p. 49; H. Doc. 105-316, p. 185)

And then consider what the
President told Mr. Blumenthal moments later:

And he said, "I feel like
a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an
oppressive force that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the
truth out. I feel like the character in the novel Darkness at Noon."

And I said to him, "When
this happened with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone?" He said, "Well, I
was within eyesight or earshot of someone." (Blumenthal, 6/4/98 GJ, p.
50; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 185)

At one point, Mr.
Blumenthal was asked by the grand jury to describe the President's
manner and demeanor during the exchange.

Q. In response to my
question how you responded to the President's story about a threat or
discussion about a threat from Ms. Lewinsky, you mentioned you didn't
recall specifically. Do you recall generally the nature of your
response to the President?

A. It was generally
sympathetic to the President. And I certainly believed his story. It
was a very heartfelt story, he was pouring out his heart, and I
believed him. (Blumenthal, 6/25/98 GJ, pgs. 16-17; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs.
192-193)

BETTY
CURRIE

When Betty Currie
testified before the grand jury, she could not recall whether she had
another one-on-one discussion with the President on Tuesday, January
20, or Wednesday, January 21. But she did state that on one of those
days, the President summoned her back to his office. At that time, the
President recapped their now-infamous Sunday afternoon post-deposition
discussion in the Oval Office. It was at that meeting that the
President made a series of statements to Ms. Currie, to some of which
she could not possibly have known the answers. (e.g. "Monica came on to
me and I never touched her, right?")(BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70-75; H.Doc.
105-316, pgs. 559-560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6-7; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 664)

When he spoke to her on
January 20 or 21, he spoke in the same tone and demeanor that he used
in his January 18 Sunday session.

Ms. Currie stated that the
President may have mentioned that she might be asked about Monica
Lewinsky. (BC, 1/24/98 Int., p. 8; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 536)

MOTIVE
FOR LIES TO STAFF

It is abundantly clear
that the President's assertions to staff were designed for
dissemination to the American people. But it is more important to
understand that the President intended his aides to relate that false
story to investigators and grand jurors alike. We know that this is
true for the following reasons: the Special Division had recently
appointed the Office of Independent Counsel to investigate the Monica
Lewinsky matter; the President realized that Jones' attorneys and
investigators were investigating this matter; the Washington Post
journalists and investigators were exposing the details of the Lewinsky
affair; and, an investigation relating to perjury charges based on
Presidential activities in the Oval Office would certainly lead to
interviews with West Wing employees and high level staffers. Because
the President would not appear before the grand jury, his version of
events would be supplied by those staffers to whom he had lied. The
President actually acknowledged that he knew his aides might be called
before the grand jury. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 105-109; H.Doc. 105-311,
pgs. 557-557)

In addition, Mr. Podesta
testified that he knew that he was likely to be a witness in the
ongoing grand jury criminal investigation. He said that he was
"sensitive about not exchanging information because I knew I was a
potential witness." (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 79; H.Doc. 105-316, p.
3332) He also recalled that the President volunteered to provide
information about Ms. Lewinsky to him even though Mr. Podesta had not
asked for these details. (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 79; H.Doc. 105-316, p.
3332)

In other words, the
President's lies and deceptions to his White House aides, coupled with
his steadfast refusal to testify had the effect of presenting a false
account of events to investigators and grand jurors. The President's
aides believed the President when he told them his contrived account.
The aides' eventual testimony provided the President's calculated
falsehoods to the grand jury which, in turn, gave the jurors an
inaccurate and misleading set of facts upon which to base any decisions.

WIN,
WIN, WIN

President Clinton also
implemented a win-at-all-costs strategy calculated to obstruct the
administration of justice in the Jones case and in the grand
jury. This is demonstrated in testimony presented by Richard "Dick"
Morris to the federal grand jury.

Mr. Morris, a former
presidential advisor, testified that on January 21, 1998, he met
President Clinton and they discussed the turbulent events of the day.
The President again denied the accusations against him. After further
discussions, they decided to have an overnight poll taken to determine
if the American people would forgive the President for adultery,
perjury, and obstruction of justice. When Mr. Morris received the
results, he called the President:

And I said, "They're just
too shocked by this. It's just too new, it's too raw." And I said, "And
the problem is they're willing to forgive you for adultery, but not for
perjury or obstruction of justice or the various other things." (Morris
8/18/98 GJ, p. 28; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 2929)

Morris recalls the
following exchange:

Morris: And I said,
"They're just not ready for it." meaning the voters.

In order to "win," it was
necessary to convince the public, and hopefully the grand jurors who
read the newspapers, that Monica Lewinsky was unworthy of belief. If
the account given by Ms. Lewinsky to Linda Tripp was believed, then
there would emerge a tawdry affair in and near the Oval Office.
Moreover, the President's own perjury and that of Monica Lewinsky would
surface. To do this, the President employed the full power and
credibility of the White House and its press corps to destroy the
witness. Thus on January 29, 1998:

Inside the White House,
the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as
President Bill Clinton called Monica Lewinsky. Should they paint her as
a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker? (The Plain Dealer)

Again:

"That poor child has
serious emotional problems," Rep. Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York,
said Tuesday night before the State of the Union. "She's fantasizing.
And I haven't heard that she played with a full deck in her other
experiences." (The Plain Dealer)

From Gene Lyons, an
Arkansas columnist on January 30:

But it's also very easy to
take a mirror's eye view of this thing, look at this thing from a
completely different direction and take the same evidence and posit a
totally innocent relationship in which the president was, in a sense,
the victim of someone rather like the woman who followed David
Letterman around. (NBC News)

From another "source" on
February 1:

Monica had become known at
the White House, says one source, as "the stalker."

And on February 4:

The media have reported
that sources describe Lewinsky as "infatuated" with the president,
"star struck" and even "a stalker." (Buffalo News)

Finally, on January 31:

One White House aide
called reporters to offer information about Monica Lewinsky's past, her
weight problems and what the aide said was her nickname - "The Stalker."

Junior staff members,
speaking on the condition that they not be identified, said she was
known as a flirt, wore her skirts too short, and was "A little bit
weird."

Little by little, ever
since allegations of an affair between U.S. President Bill Clinton and
Lewinsky surfaced 10 days ago, White House sources have waged a
behind-the-scenes campaign to portray her as an untrustworthy climber
obsessed with the President.

Just hours after the story
broke, one White House source made unsolicited calls offering
that Lewinsky was the "troubled" product of divorced parents and may
have been following
the footsteps of her mother, who wrote a tell-all book about the
private lives of three
famous opera singers.

One story had Lewinsky
following former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos to Starbucks. After
observing what kind of coffee he ordered, she showed up the next day at
his secretary's desk with a cup of the same coffee to "surprise him."
(Toronto Sun)

This sounds familiar
because it is the exact tactic used to destroy the reputation and
credibility of Paula Jones. The difference is that these false rumors
were emanating from the White House, the bastion of the free world, to
protect one man from being forced to answer for his deportment in the
highest office in the land.

On August
17, 1998, the President testified before the grand jury. He then was
specifically asked whether he knew that his aides (Blumenthal, Bowles,
Podesta and Currie) were likely to be called before the grand jury.

Q It may have been
misleading, sir, and you knew though, after January 21st
when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into
this, you knew that they might be witnesses. You knew that they might
be called into a grand jury, didn't you?

WJC That's right. I think
I was quite careful what I said after that. I may have said something
to all these people to that effect, but I'll also - whenever anybody
asked me any details, I said, look, I don't want you to be a witness or
I turn you into a witness or give you information that would get you in
trouble. I just wouldn't talk. I, by and large, didn't talk to people
about it.

Q If all of these people -
let's leave Mrs. Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid Blumenthal,
John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erskine Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the
story broke, after Judge Starr's involvement was known on January 21st,
have said that you denied a sexual relationship with them. Are you
denying that?

WJC No.

Q And you've told us that
you --

WJC I'm just telling you
what I meant by it. I told you what I meant by it when they started
this deposition.

Q You've told us now that
you were being careful, but that it might have been misleading. Is that
correct?

WJC It might have been ***
So, what I was trying to do was to give them something they could -
that would be true, even if misleading in the context of this
deposition, and keep them out of trouble, and let's deal - and deal
with what I thought was the almost ludicrous suggestion that I had
urged someone to lie or tried to suborn perjury, in other words. (WJC
8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 106-108; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 558-560)

As the President testified
before the grand jury, he maintained that he was being truthful with
his aides. (Exhibit 20) He stated that when he spoke to them, he was
very careful with his wording. The President stated that he wanted his
statement regarding "sexual relations" to be literally true because he
was only referring to intercourse.

However, recall that John
Podesta said that the President denied sex "in any way whatsoever"
"including oral sex." The President told Mr. Podesta, Mr. Bowles, Ms.
Williams, and Harold Ickes that he did not have a "sexual relationship"
with that woman.

Importantly, seven days
after the President's grand jury appearance, the White House issued a
document entitled, "Talking Points January 24, 1998." (Chart W; Exhibit
16) This "Talking Points" document outlines proposed questions that the
President may be asked. It also outlines suggested answers to those
questions. The "Talking Points" purport to state the President's view
of sexual relations and his view of the relationship with Monica
Lewinsky. (Exhibit 17)

The "Talking Points" state
as follows:

Q. What acts does the
President believe constitute a sexual relationship?

A. I can't believe we're
on national television discussing this. I am not about to engage in an
"act-by-act" discussion of what constitutes a sexual relationship.

Q. Well, for example,
Ms. Lewinsky is on tape indicating that the President does not believe
oral sex is adultery. Would oral sex, to the President,
constitute a sexual relationship?

Some "experts" have
questioned whether the President's deportment affects his office, the
government of the United States or the dignity and honor of the
country.

Our founders decided in
the Constitutional Convention that one of the duties imposed upon the
President is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Furthermore, he is required to take an oath to "Preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States." Twice this President
stood on the steps of the Capitol, raised his right hand to God and
repeated that oath.

The Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States provides that no person shall "be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

The Seventh Amendment
insures that in civil suits "the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved."

Finally, the Fourteenth
Amendment guarantees due process of law and the equal protection of the
laws.

THE
EFFECT ON MS. JONES' RIGHTS

Paula
Jones is an American citizen, just a single citizen who felt that she
had suffered a legal wrong. More important, that legal wrong was based
upon the Constitution of the United States. She claimed essentially
that she was subjected to sexual harassment, which, in turn,
constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender. The case was not
brought against just any citizen, but against the President of the
United States, who was under a legal and moral obligation to preserve
and protect Ms. Jones' rights. It is relatively simple to mouth
high-minded platitudes and to prosecute vigorously rights violations by
someone else. It is, however, a test of courage, honor and integrity to
enforce those rights against yourself. The President failed that test.
As a citizen, Ms. Jones enjoyed an absolute constitutional right to
petition the Judicial Branch of government to redress that wrong by
filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court, which she did. At
this point she became entitled to a trial by jury if she chose, due
process of law and the equal protection of the laws no matter who the
defendant was in her suit. Due process contemplates the right to a full
and fair trail, which, in turn, means the right to call and question
witnesses, to cross-examine adverse witnesses and to have her case
decided by an unbiased and fully informed jury. What did she actually
get? None of the above.

On May 27, 1997, the
United States Supreme Court ruled in a nine to zero decision that,
"like every other citizen," Paula Jones "has a right to an orderly
disposition of her claims." In accordance with the Supreme Court's
decision, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled on
December 11, 1997, that Ms. Jones was entitled to information regarding
state or federal employees with whom the President had sexual relations
from May, 1986 to the present. Judge Wright had determined that the
information was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Six days after this ruling, the President filed an
answer to Ms. Jones' Amended Complaint. The President's Answer stated:
"President Clinton denies that he engaged in any improper conduct with
respect to plaintiff or any other woman."

Ms. Jones' right to call
and depose witnesses was thwarted by perjurious and misleading
affidavits and motions; her right to elicit testimony from adverse
witnesses was compromised by perjury and false and misleading
statements under oath. As a result, had a jury tried the case, it would
have been deprived of critical information.

That result is bad enough,
but it reaches constitutional proportions when denial of the civil
rights is directed by the President of the United States who twice took
an oath to preserve, protect and defend those rights. But we now know
what the "sanctity of an oath" means to the President.

THE
EFFECT ON THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

Moreover, the President is
the spokesman for the government and the people of the United States
concerning both domestic and foreign matters. His honesty and
integrity, therefore, directly influence the credibility of this
country. When, as here, that spokesman is guilty of a continuing
pattern of lies, misleading statements, and deceits over a long period
of time, the believability of any of his pronouncements is seriously
called into question. Indeed, how can anyone in or out of our country
any longer believe anything he says? And what does that do to
confidence in the honor and integrity of the United States?

Make no mistake, the
conduct of the President is inextricably bound to the welfare of the
people of the United States. Not only does it affect economic and
national defense, but even more directly, it affects the moral and
law-abiding fibre of the commonwealth, without which no nation can
survive. When, as here, that conduct involves a pattern of abuses of
power, of perjury, of deceit, of obstruction of justice and of the
Congress, and of other illegal activities, the resulting damage to the
honor and respect due to the United States is, of necessity,
devastating.

THE
EFFECT ON THE SYSTEM

Again: there is no such
thing as non-serious lying under oath. Every time a witness lies, that
witness chips a stone from the foundation of our entire legal system.
Likewise, every act of obstruction of justice, of witness tampering or
of perjury adversely affects the judicial branch of government like a
pebble tossed into a lake. You may not notice the effect at once, but
you can be certain that the tranquility of that lake has been
disturbed. And if enough pebbles are thrown into the water, the lake
itself may disappear. So too with the truth-seeking process of the
courts. Every unanswered and unpunished assault upon it has its lasting
effect and given enough of them, the system itself will implode.

That is why two women who
testified before the Committee had been indicted, convicted and
punished severely for false statements under oath in civil cases. And
that is why only recently a federal grand jury in Chicago indicted four
former college football players because they gave false testimony under
oath to a grand jury. Nobody suggested that they should not be charged
because their motives may have been to protect their careers and
family. And nobody has suggested that the perjury was non-serious
because it involved only lies about sports; i.e., betting on college
football games.

DISREGARD
OF THE RULE OF LAW

Apart from all else, the
President's illegal actions constitute an attack upon and utter
disregard for the truth, and for the rule of law. Much worse, they
manifest an arrogant disdain not only for the rights of his fellow
citizens, but also for the functions and the integrity of the other two
co-equal branches of our constitutional system. One of the witnesses
that appeared earlier likened the government of the United States to a
three-legged stool. The analysis is apt, because the entire structure
of our country rests upon three equal supports: the Legislative, the
Judicial, and the Executive. Remove one of those supports, and the
State will totter. Remove two and the structure will collapse
altogether.

EFFECT
ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

The President mounted a
direct assault upon the truth-seeking process which is the very essence
and foundation of the Judicial Branch. Not content with that, though,
Mr. Clinton renewed his lies, half-truths and obstruction to this
Congress when he filed his answers to simple requests to admit or deny.
In so doing, he also demonstrated his lack of respect for the
constitutional functions of the Legislative Branch.

Actions do not lose their
public character merely because they may not directly affect the
domestic and foreign functioning of the Executive Branch. Their
significance must be examined for their effect on the functioning of
the entire system of government. Viewed in that manner, the President's
actions were both public and extremely destructive.THE
CONDUCT CHARGED

WARRANTS
CONVICTION AND REMOVAL

The Articles state
offenses that warrant the President's conviction and removal from
office. The Senate's own precedents establish that perjury and
obstruction warrant conviction and removal from office. Those same
precedents establish that the perjury and obstruction need not have any
direct connection to the officer's official duties.

PRECEDENTS

In the 1980s, the Senate
convicted and removed from office three federal judges for making
perjurious statements. Background and History of Impeachment
Hearings before the Subcomm. On the Constitution of the House Comm. on
the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. at
190-193 (Comm. Print 1998), (Testimony of Charles Cooper) ("Cooper
Testimony") Although able counsel represented each judge, none of them
argued that perjury or making false statements are not impeachable
offenses. Nor did a single Congressman or Senator, in any of the three
impeachment proceedings, suggest that perjury does not constitute a
high crime and misdemeanor. Finally, in the cases of Judge Claiborne
and Judge Nixon, it was undisputed that the perjury was not committed
in connection with the exercise of the judges' judicial powers.

JUDGE NIXON

In 1989, Judge Walter L.
Nixon, Jr., was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for
committing perjury. Judge Nixon's offense stemmed from his grand jury
testimony and statements to federal officers concerning his
intervention in the state drug prosecution of Drew Fairchild, the son
of Wiley Fairchild, a business partner of Judge Nixon's.

Although Judge Nixon had
no official role or function in Drew Fairchild's case (which was
assigned to a state court judge), Wiley Fairchild had asked Judge Nixon
to help out by speaking to the prosecutor. Judge Nixon did so, and the
prosecutor, a long-time friend of Judge Nixon's, dropped the case. When
the FBI and the Department of Justice interviewed Judge Nixon, he
denied any involvement whatsoever. Subsequently, a federal grand jury
was empaneled and Judge Nixon again denied his involvement before that
grand jury.

After a lengthy criminal
prosecution, Judge Nixon was convicted on two counts of perjury before
the grand jury and sentenced to five years in prison on each count. Not
long thereafter, the House impeached Judge Nixon by a vote of 417 to 0.
The first article of impeachment charged him with making the false or
misleading statement to the grand jury that he could not "recall"
discussing the Fairchild case with the prosecutor. The second article
charged Nixon with making affirmative false or misleading statements to
the grand jury that he had "nothing whatsoever officially or
unofficially to do with the Drew Fairchild case." The third article
alleged that Judge Nixon made numerous false statements (not under
oath) to federal

The House unanimously
impeached Judge Nixon, and the House Managers' Report expressed no
doubt that perjury is an impeachable offense:

It is difficult to imagine
an act more subversive to the legal process than lying from the witness
stand. A judge who violates his testimonial oath and misleads a grand
jury is clearly unfit to remain on the bench. If a judge's truthfulness
cannot be guaranteed, if he sets less than the highest standard for
candor, how can ordinary citizens who appear in court be expected to
abide by their testimonial oath?

House of Representatives'
Brief in Support of the Articles of Impeachment at 59 (1989). House
Manager Sensenbrenner addressed the question even more directly:

There are basically two
questions before you in connection with this impeachment. First, does
the conduct alleged in the three articles of impeachment state an
impeachable offense? There is really no debate on this point. The
articles allege misconduct that is criminal and wholly inconsistent
with judicial integrity and the judicial oath. Everyone agrees that a
judge who lies under oath, or who deceives Federal investigators by
lying in an interview, is not fit to remain on the bench. 135 Cong.
Rec. S14,497 (Statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner)

The Senate agreed,
overwhelmingly voting to convict Judge Nixon of perjury on the first
two articles (89-8 and 78-19, respectively). As Senator Carl Levin
explained:

The record amply supports
the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the
grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are
the statements cited in articles I and II and it is on those articles
that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office.
135 Cong. Rec. S14,637 (Statement of Sen. Levin).

JUDGE HASTINGS

Also in 1989, the House
impeached Judge Alcee L. Hastings for, among other things, committing
numerous acts of perjury. The Senate convicted him, and he was removed
from office. Initially, Judge Hastings had been indicted by a federal
grand jury for conspiracy stemming from his alleged bribery conspiracy
with his friend Mr. William Borders to "fix" cases before Judge
Hastings in exchange for cash payments from defendants. Mr. Borders was
convicted, but, at his own trial, Judge Hastings took the stand and
unequivocally denied any participation in a conspiracy with Mr.
Borders. The jury acquitted Judge Hastings on all counts. Nevertheless,
the House impeached Judge Hastings, approving seventeen articles of
impeachment, fourteen of which were for lying under oath at his trial.

The House voted 413 to 3
to impeach. The House Managers' Report left no doubt that perjury alone
is impeachable:

It is important to realize
that each instance of false testimony charged in the false statement
articles is more than enough reason to convict Judge Hastings and
remove him from office. Even if the evidence were insufficient to prove
that Judge Hastings was part of the conspiracy with William Borders,
which the House in no way concedes, the fact that he lied under oath to
assure his acquittal is conduct that cannot be tolerated of a United
States District Judge. To bolster one's defense by lying to a jury is
separate, independent corrupt conduct. For this reason alone, Judge
Hastings should be removed from public office.

The House of
Representatives' Brief in Support of the Articles of Impeachment at
127-28 (1989). Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) also argued for
the impeachment of Judge Hastings:

[W]e can no more close our
eyes to acts that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors when
practiced by judges whose views we approve than we could against judges
whose views we detested. It would be disloyal . . . to my oath of
office at this late state of my career to attempt to set up a double
standard for those who share my philosophy and for those who may oppose
it. In order to be true to our principles, we must demand that all
persons live up to the same high standards that we demand of everyone
else. 134 Cong. Rec. H6184 (1988) (Statement of Rep. Conyers).

JUDGE CLAIBORNE

In 1986, Judge Harry E.
Claiborne was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for making
false statements under penalties of perjury. In particular, Judge
Claiborne had filed false income tax returns in 1979 and 1980, grossly
understating his income. As a result, he was convicted by a jury of two
counts of willfully making a false statement on a federal tax return in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Subsequently, the House
unanimously (406-0) approved four articles of impeachment. The
proposition that Claiborne's perjurious personal income tax filings
were not impeachable was never even seriously considered. As the House
Managers explained:

[T]he constitutional
issues raised by the first two Articles of Impeachment [concerning the
filing of

false tax returns] are
readily resolved. The Constitution provides that Judge Claiborne may be
impeached and convicted for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article II,
Section 4. The willful making or subscribing of a false statement
on a tax return is a felony offense under the laws of the United
States. The commission of such a felony is a proper basis for Judge
Claiborne's impeachment and conviction in the Senate.

House Manager Rodino, in
his oral argument to the Senate, emphatically made the same point:

Honor in the eyes of the
American people lies in public officials who respect the law, not in
those who violate the trust that has been given to them when they are
trusted with public office. Judge Harry E. Claiborne has, sad to say,
undermined the integrity of the judicial branch of Government. To
restore that integrity and to maintain public confidence in the
administration of justice, Judge Claiborne must be convicted on the
fourth Article of Impeachment [that of reducing confidence in the
integrity of the judiciary]. 132 Cong. Rec. S15,481 (1986) (Statement
of Rep. Rodino).

The Senate agreed. Telling
are the words of then-Senator Albert Gore, Jr. In voting to convict
Judge Claiborne and remove him from office:

The conclusion is
inescapable that Claiborne filed false income tax returns and that he
did so willfully rather than negligently. . . . Given the
circumstances, it is incumbent upon the Senate to fulfill its
constitutional responsibility and strip this man of his title. An
individual who has knowingly falsified tax returns has no business
receiving a salary derived from the tax dollars of honest citizens.
More importantly, an individual guilty of such reprehensible conduct
ought not be permitted to exercise the awesome powers which the
Constitution entrusts to the Federal Judiciary. Claiborne
Proceedings, S. Doc. No. 99-48, at 372 (1986).

APPLICATION TO
THE PRESIDENT

To avoid the conclusive
force of these recent precedents -- and in particular the exact
precedent supporting impeachment for, conviction, and removal for
perjury -- the only recourse for the President's defenders is to argue
that a high crime or misdemeanor for a judge is not necessarily a high
crime or misdemeanor for the President. The arguments advanced in
support of this dubious proposition do not withstand serious scrutiny. See
generally Cooper Testimony, at 193.

The Constitution provides
that Article III judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,
U.S. Const. Art. III, 1. Thus, these arguments suggest that judges are
impeachable for "misbehavior" while other federal officials are only
impeachable for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and
misdemeanors.

The staff of the House
Judiciary Committee in the 1970s and the National Commission on
Judicial Discipline and Removal in the 1990s both issued reports
rejecting these arguments. In 1974, the staff of the Judiciary
Committee's Impeachment Inquiry issued a report which included the
following conclusion:

Does Article III, Section
1 of the Constitution, which states that judges 'shall hold their
Offices during good Behaviour,' limit the relevance of the ten
impeachments of judges with respect to presidential impeachment
standards as has been argued by some? It does not. The argument is that
'good behavior' implies an additional ground for impeachment of judges
not applicable to other civil officers. However, the only impeachment
provision discussed in the Convention and included in the Constitution
is Article II, Section 4, which by its expressed terms, applies to all
civil officers, including judges, and defines impeachment offenses as
'Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Staff of
House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2d
Sess., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment
(Comm. Print 1974) ("1974 Staff Report") at 17.

The National Commission on
Judicial Discipline and Removal came to the same conclusion. The
Commission concluded that "the most plausible reading of the phrase
'during good Behavior' is that it means tenure for life, subject to the
impeachment power. . . . The ratification debates about the federal
judiciary seem to have proceeded on the assumption that good-behavior
tenure meant removal only through impeachment and conviction." National
Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, Report of the
National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal 17-18
(1993)(footnote omitted).

The record of the 1986
impeachment of Judge Claiborne also argues against different
impeachment standards for federal judges and presidents. Judge
Claiborne filed a motion asking the Senate to dismiss the articles of
impeachment against him for failure to state impeachable offenses. One
of the motion's arguments was that "[t]he standard for impeachment of a
judge is different than that for other officers" and that the
Constitution limited "removal of the judiciary to acts involving
misconduct related to discharge of office." Memorandum in Support
of Motion to Dismiss the Articles of Impeachment on the Grounds They Do
Not State Impeachable Offenses 4 (hereinafter cited as "Claiborne
Motion"), reprinted in Hearings Before the Senate
Impeachment Trial Committee, 99th Cong., 2d Sess.
245 (1986)(hereinafter cited as "Senate Claiborne Hearings").

Representative Kastenmeier
responded that "reliance on the term 'good behavior' as stating a
sanction for judges is totally misplaced and virtually all commentators
agree that that is directed to affirming the life tenure of judges
during good behavior. It is not to set them down, differently, as
judicial officers from civil officers." Id. at 81-82. He
further stated that "[n]or . . . is there any support for the notion
that . . . Federal judges are not civil officers of the United States,
subject to the impeachment clause of article II of the Constitution." Id.
at 81.

The Senate never voted on
Claiborne's motion. However, the Senate was clearly not swayed by the
arguments contained therein because it later voted to convict Judge
Claiborne. 132 Cong. Rec. S15,760-62 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 1986). The
Senate thus rejected the claim that the standard of impeachable
offenses was different for judges than for presidents.

Moreover, even assuming
that presidential high crimes and misdemeanors could be different from
judicial ones, surely the President ought not be held to a lower
standard of impeachability than judges. In the course of the 1980s
judicial impeachments, Congress emphasized unequivocally that the
removal from office of federal judges guilty of crimes
indistinguishable from those currently charged against the President
was essential to the preservation of the rule of law. If the perjury of
just one judge so undermines the rule of law as to make it intolerable
that he remain in office, then how much more so does

perjury committed by the
President of the United States, who alone is charged with the duty "to
take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." See generally,
Cooper Testimony at 194)

It is just as devastating
to our system of government when a President commits perjury. As the
House Judiciary Committee stated in justifying an article of
impeachment against President Nixon, the President not only has "the
obligation that every citizen has to live under the law," but in
addition has the duty "not merely to live by the law but to see that
law faithfully applied." Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President
of the United States, H. Rept. No. 93-1305, 93rd Cong., 2d
Sess. at 180 (1974). The Constitution provides that he "shall
take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. Art. II,
§ 3. When a President, as chief law enforcement officer of the
United States, commits perjury, he violates this constitutional oath
unique to his office and casts doubt on the notion that we are a nation
ruled by laws and not men.

PERJURY AND
OBSTRUCTION ARE AS SERIOUS AS BRIBERY

Further evidence that
perjury and obstruction warrant conviction and removal comes directly
from the text of the Constitution. Because the Constitution
specifically mentions bribery, no one can dispute that it is an
impeachable offense. U.S. Const., art. II, § 4. Because the
constitutional language does not limit the term, we must take it to
mean all forms of bribery. Our statutes specifically criminalize
bribery of witnesses with the intent to influence their testimony in
judicial proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) & (4), (c)(2)
& (3). See also 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 (general
obstruction of justice statute), 1512 (witness tampering statute).
Indeed, in a criminal case, the efforts to provide Ms. Lewinsky with
job assistance in return for submitting a false affidavit charged in
the Articles might easily have been charged under these statutes. No
one could reasonably argue that the President's bribing a witness to
provide false testimony - even in a private lawsuit - does not rise to
the level of an impeachable offense. The plain language of the
Constitution indicates that it is.

Having established that
point, the rest is easy. Bribing a witness is illegal because it leads
to false testimony that in turn undermines the ability of the judicial
system to reach just results. Thus, among other things, the Framers
clearly intended impeachment to protect the judicial system from these
kinds of attacks. Perjury and obstruction of justice are illegal for
exactly the same reason, and they accomplish exactly the same ends
through slightly different means. Simple logic establishes that perjury
and obstruction of justice -- even in a private lawsuit -- are exactly
the types of other high crimes and misdemeanors that are of the same
magnitude as bribery.

HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS

Although Congress has never adopted a fixed
definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," much of the background
and history of the impeachment process contradicts the President's
claim that these offenses are private and therefore do not warrant
conviction and removal. Two reports prepared in 1974 on the background
and history of impeachment are particularly helpful in evaluating the
President's defense. Both reports support the conclusion that the facts
in this case compel the conviction and removal of President Clinton.

Many have commented on the
report on "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment"
prepared in February 1974 by the staff of the Nixon impeachment
inquiry. The general principles concerning grounds for impeachment set
forth in that report indicate that perjury and obstruction of justice
are impeachable offenses. Consider this key language from the staff
report describing the type of conduct which gives rise to impeachment:

The emphasis has been on
the significant effects of the conduct -- undermining the integrity
of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office,
arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse
impact on the system of government. 1974 Staff Report at 26
(emphases added).

Perjury and obstruction of
justice clearly "undermine the integrity of office." They unavoidably
erode respect for the office of the President. Such offenses obviously
involve "disregard of [the President's] constitutional duties and oath
of office." Moreover, these offenses have a direct and serious "adverse
impact on the system of government." Obstruction of justice is by
definition an assault on the due administration of justice -- a core
function of our system of government.

The thoughtful report on
"The Law of Presidential Impeachment" prepared by the Association of
the Bar of the City of New York in January of 1974 also places a great
deal of emphasis on the corrosive impact of presidential misconduct on
the integrity of office:

It is our conclusion, in
summary, that the grounds for impeachment are not limited to or
synonymous with crimes . . . . Rather, we believe that acts which
undermine the integrity of government are appropriate grounds
whether or not they happen to constitute offenses under the general
criminal law. In our view, the essential nexus to damaging the
integrity of government may be found in acts which constitute
corruption in, or flagrant abuse of the powers of, official position.
It may also be found in acts which, without directly affecting
governmental processes, undermine that degree of public confidence
in the probity of executive and judicial officers that is essential to
the effectiveness of government in a free society.

Association of the Bar of
the City of New York, The Law of Presidential Impeachment,
(1974) at 161 (emphases added). The commission of perjury and
obstruction of justice by a President are acts that without doubt
"undermine that degree of public confidence in the probity of the [the
President] that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a
free society." Such acts inevitably subvert the respect for law which
is essential to the well-being of our constitutional system.

That the President's
perjury and obstruction do not directly involve his official conduct
does not diminish their significance. The record is clear that federal
officials have been impeached for reasons other than official
misconduct. As set forth above, two recent impeachments of federal
judges are compelling examples. In 1989, Judge Walter Nixon was
impeached, convicted, and removed from office for committing perjury
before a federal grand jury. Judge Nixon's perjury involved his efforts
to fix a state case for the son of a business partner -- a matter in
which he had no official role. In 1986, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was
impeached, convicted, and removed from office for making false
statements under penalty of perjury on his income tax returns. That
misconduct had nothing to do with his official responsibilities.

Nothing in the text,
structure, or history of the Constitution suggests that officials are
subject to impeachment only for official misconduct. Perjury and
obstruction of justice -- even regarding a private matter -- are
offenses that substantially affect the President's official duties
because they are grossly incompatible with his preeminent duty to "take
care that the laws be faithfully executed." Regardless of their
genesis, perjury and obstruction of justice are acts of public
misconduct -- they cannot be dismissed as understandable or trivial.
Perjury and obstruction of justice are not private matters; they are
crimes against the system of justice, for which impeachment,
conviction, and removal are appropriate.

The record of Judge
Claiborne's impeachment proceedings affirms that conclusion.
Representative Hamilton Fish, the ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee and one of the House managers in the Senate trial, stated
that "[i]mpeachable conduct does not have to occur in the course of the
performance of an officer's official duties. Evidence of misconduct,
misbehavior, high crimes, and misdemeanors can be justified upon one's
private dealings as well as one's exercise of public office. That, of
course, is the situation in this case." 132 Cong. Rec. H4713 (daily ed.
July 22, 1986).

Judge Claiborne's
unsuccessful motion that the Senate dismiss the articles of impeachment
for failure to state impeachable offenses provides additional evidence
that personal misconduct can justify impeachment. One of the arguments
his attorney made for the motion was that "there is no allegation . . .
that the behavior of Judge Claiborne in any way was related to
misbehavior in his official function as a judge; it was private
misbehavior." (Senate Claiborne Hearings, at 77, Statement of
Judge Claiborne's counsel, Oscar Goodman). (See also Claiborne Motion,
at 3)

Representative
Kastenmeier responded by stating that "it would be absurd to conclude
that a judge who had committed murder, mayhem, rape, or perhaps
espionage in his private life, could not be removed from office by the
U.S. Senate." (Senate Claiborne
Hearings, at 81) Kastenmeier's response was repeated
by the House of Representatives in its pleading opposing Claiborne's
motion to dismiss. (Opposition
to Claiborne Motion at 2)

The Senate did not vote on
Judge Claiborne's motion, but it later voted to convict him. 132 Cong.
Rec. S15,760-62 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 1986). The Senate thus agreed with
the House that private improprieties could be, and were in this
instance, impeachable offenses.

The Claiborne case makes
clear that perjury, even if it relates to a matter wholly separated
from a federal officer's official duties -- a judge's personal tax
returns -- is an impeachable offense. Judge Nixon's false statements
were also in regard to a matter distinct from his official duties. In
short, the Senate's own precedents establish that misconduct need not
be in one's official capacity to warrant removal.

CONCLUSION

This is a defining moment
for the Presidency as an institution, because if the President is not
convicted as a consequence of the conduct that has been portrayed, then
no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again and no
Senate will ever convict. The bar will be so high that only a convicted
felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.

Experts pointed to the
fact that the House refused to impeach President Nixon for lying on an
income tax return. Can you imagine a future President, faced with
possible impeachment, pointing to the perjuries, lies, obstructions,
and tampering with witnesses by the current occupant of the office as
not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? If this is not
enough, what is? How far can the standard be lowered without completely
compromising the credibility of the office for all time?